Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-65 
   
Before the 
Federal Communications Commission 
Washington, D.C. 20554 
 
 
In the Matters of 
 
Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced 
Telecommunications Capability to All Americans 
in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible 
Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to 
Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 
1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data 
Improvement Act 
 
A National Broadband Plan for Our Future 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
 
 
GN Docket No. 09-137 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
GN Docket No. 09-51 
 
NOTICE OF INQUIRY 
 
Adopted:  July 31, 2009 Released:  August 7, 2009 
 
Comment Date: September 4, 2009 
Reply Comment Date: October 2, 2009  
 
By the Commission:  Chairman Genachowski and Commissioners Copps and McDowell issuing separate  
statements. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 Para. 
I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1 
II. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................... 3 
III. EVOLVING NATIONAL GOALS AND THE NEED FOR BROADBAND DATA ........................ 12 
A. Broadband Statutory Developments .............................................................................................. 13 
1. Recovery Act – Development of the National Broadband Plan.............................................. 13 
2. BDIA Revisions to the Section 706 Inquiry............................................................................ 15 
B. Comprehensive Broadband Data Collection.................................................................................. 18 
1. Commission Broadband Data Collection ................................................................................ 19 
a. Form 477 Data Collection................................................................................................. 19 
b. Mobile Broadband Network Coverage Maps and Data.................................................... 22 
c. Cable System Broadband Data ......................................................................................... 23 
d. Consumer Broadband Registry......................................................................................... 24 
2. Broadband Mapping Efforts.................................................................................................... 25 
3. Other Broadband Data Gathering Efforts................................................................................ 27 
a. Commission Consumer Survey......................................................................................... 28 
b. GAO Broadband Metrics and Standards Study ................................................................ 29 
4. Other Broadband Legislation and Ongoing Commission Efforts ........................................... 32 
IV. SPECIFIC ISSUES FOR INQUIRY.................................................................................................... 33 
A. What Is Advanced Telecommunications Capability or Broadband? ............................................. 34 
B. Is Broadband Available to All Americans? ................................................................................... 42 
1. Definition of Availability ........................................................................................................ 42 
2. Trends in Developing Technologies........................................................................................ 50 
 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-65 
 
 
2 
                                                
C. Is Broadband Deployment Reasonable and Timely?..................................................................... 52 
D. What Actions Can Accelerate Broadband Deployment?............................................................... 64 
E. What Actions Should the Commission Take to Improve Its Regular Broadband Data 
Collection Efforts?......................................................................................................................... 67 
V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS................................................................................................................ 68 
A. Paperwork Reduction Act.............................................................................................................. 68 
B. Ex Parte Presentations.................................................................................................................... 69 
C. Comment Filing Procedures .......................................................................................................... 70 
D. Accessible Formats ........................................................................................................................ 71 
VI. ORDERING CLAUSE......................................................................................................................... 72 
APPENDIX—Commission’s Report on High-Speed Services for Internet Access:  Status as of  
           June 30, 2008 
 
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. This Notice of Inquiry (Inquiry) begins a familiar task in a new way.  As required by section 
706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended,
1
 we seek comment on whether broadband
2
 is 
being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.  Since Congress enacted section 706, 
the Commission has conducted five section 706 inquiries.  These inquiries were conducted under a 
general national policy of encouraging the provision of broadband to the public.
3
  In each instance, the 
Commission concluded that broadband was being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely 
fashion.  These conclusions, however, rested on data increasingly criticized as lacking sufficient detail to 
support robust analyses.  
2. Whatever concerns linger regarding the Commission’s prior section 706 analyses, we begin 
the present inquiry on a clean slate.  In particular, we initiate this Inquiry against a backdrop of statutory 
and policy changes, as well as improvements to broadband data gathering.  Recent Congressional 
legislation has underscored the importance of broadband to the nation and its position as a top priority at 
the Commission.
4
  As described in the National Broadband Plan NOI and the Rural Broadband Report, 
the nation is in the midst of a massive undertaking to ensure that all Americans have access to 
 
1
 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b).  Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, title VII, Sec. 
706, 110 Stat. 56, 153 (1996) (1996 Act), as amended in relevant part by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, 
Pub. L. No. 110-385, 122 Stat. 4096 (2008) (BDIA), is now codified in Title 47, Chapter 12 of the United States 
Code.  See 47 U.S.C. § 1301 et. seq.  Prior to the BDIA, section 706 was reproduced in the notes to section 157 of 
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act).  47 U.S.C. § 157 nt. (2008).  In the text, we generally refer 
to section 706 and cite to the relevant current section of the BDIA and the United States Code, as applicable.  
Citations to outdated sections of the United States Code are denoted by date (e.g., 47 U.S.C. § 157 nt. (2008)). 
2
 As explained below, in this Inquiry we use the term “broadband” synonymously with “advanced 
telecommunications capability.”  See infra para. 4. 
3
 47 U.S.C. § 157 nt. (2008). 
4
 See, e.g., American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, § 6001(k)(2), Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115 
(2009) (Recovery Act) (tasking the Commission with developing a national broadband plan to seek to ensure that all 
people of the United States have access to broadband); see also BDIA § 102(1); 47 U.S.C. § 1301(1) (finding that 
the expansion of broadband technology “has resulted in enhanced economic development and public safety for 
communities across the Nation, improved health care and educational opportunities, and a better quality of life for 
all Americans”); BDIA § 102(2); 47 U.S.C. § 1301(2) (recognizing that continued deployment and adoption of 
broadband technology is necessary “to ensuring that our Nation remains competitive and continues to create 
business and job growth”). 
 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-65 
 
 
3 
                                                
broadband.
5
  We will assess the nation’s progress in deploying broadband in light of these recent 
Congressional directives.  In addition, in contrast to prior section 706 inquiries, for this Inquiry we will 
have access to significantly more comprehensive broadband data, in part because the Commission in 
March 2009 began collecting far more granular broadband data on the revised FCC Form 477.  We also 
will have the benefit of the extensive comments filed in response to the National Broadband Plan NOI.     
II. BACKGROUND 
3. Section 706 requires the Commission to “initiate a notice of inquiry concerning the 
availability of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans (including, in particular, 
elementary and secondary schools and classrooms).”
6
  In conducting this inquiry, the Commission must 
“determine whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a 
reasonable and timely fashion.”
7
  If that “determination is negative, [the Commission] shall take 
immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability by removing barriers to infrastructure 
investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications market.”
8
  
4. Section 706(c) defines advanced telecommunications capability as “high-speed, switched, 
broadband telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, 
data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology.”
9
  In previous reports to Congress, 
the Commission used the terms “broadband,” “advanced telecommunications capability,” and “advanced 
services” interchangeably to mean services and facilities with an upstream (customer-to-provider) and 
downstream (provider-to-customer) transmission speed of more than 200 kilobits per second (kbps).
10
  
We will continue to use these terms interchangeably in this Inquiry.
11
  We do not, however, foreclose the 
possibility that the Commission might later define “broadband” to be different from “advanced 
telecommunications capability” or “advanced services.”  Indeed, we seek comment below on the 
 
5
 A National Broadband Plan for Our Future, GN Docket No. 09-51, Notice of Inquiry, 24 FCC Rcd 4342 (2009) 
(National Broadband Plan NOI); MICHAEL J. COPPS, ACTING CHMN., FCC, BRINGING BROADBAND TO RURAL 
AMERICA:  REPORT ON A RURAL BROADBAND STRATEGY (May 22, 2009) (RURAL BROADBAND REPORT), attached 
to Acting Chairman Copps Releases Report on Rural Broadband Strategy, GN Docket No. 09-29, Public Notice, 
DA 09-1211 (rel. May 29, 2009).   
6
 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b). 
7
 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b). 
8
 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b). 
9
 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d)(1). 
10
 Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a 
Reasonable and Timely Fashion and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 98-146, Report, 14 FCC Rcd 2398, 2406, para. 20 (1999) (Section 
706 First Report); Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All 
Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, CC Docket No. 98-146, Second Report, 15 FCC Rcd 20913, 
20919-21, para. 10 (2000) (Section 706 Second Report); Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced 
Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, CC Docket No. 98-146, 
Report, 17 FCC Rcd 2844, 2850, para. 9 (2002) (Section 706 Third Report); Availability of Advanced 
Telecommunications Capability in the United States, GN Docket No. 04-54, Fourth Report to Congress, 19 FCC 
Rcd 20540, 20551-52 (2004) (Section 706 Fourth Report); Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced 
Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, GN Docket No. 07-45, Fifth 
Report, 23 FCC Rcd 9615, 9616, para. 2 (2008) (Section 706 Fifth Report), pet. for recon. pending.   
11
 We seek comment below on the proper definition of “broadband” for purposes of this proceeding and, in 
particular, whether the transmission speeds the Commission has used to define broadband remain appropriate.  See 
infra Part IV.A. 
 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-65 
 
 
4 
                                                
meanings of these terms.
12
  In contrast, the Commission has used the term “high-speed” to describe 
services with over 200 kbps capability in at least one (but not necessarily both) directions.
13
  In the 2008 
Broadband Data Gathering Order, the Commission updated the broadband reporting speed tiers and 
created the term “first generation data” to refer to those services with data rates greater than 200 kbps but 
less than 768 kbps in the faster direction, and the term “basic broadband tier 1” to refer to services equal 
to or greater than 768 kbps but less than 1.5 megabits per second (mbps) in the faster direction.
14
  
Subsequent tiers were labeled “broadband tier 2” through “broadband tier 7.”
15
  
5. The Commission conducted five inquiries pursuant to section 706 before that section was 
amended by the BDIA.  In each report, the Commission concluded that the deployment of broadband, at 
the time of the report, was reasonable and timely on a general, nationwide basis.
16
  In 1999, the initial 
section 706 inquiry depicted the early stages of the deployment of advanced services and relied on 
anecdotal evidence relating to trends in investment in broadband facilities, deployment of facilities that 
serve the “last mile” to consumers, and demand for broadband.
17
  As such, although the Commission was 
encouraged that, for that point in time, “the deployment of [broadband] capability generally appear[ed] 
. . . reasonable and timely,” the Commission found it “difficult to reach any firm judgment about the state 
of deployment.”
18
 
6. In 2000, shortly after initiating the second section 706 inquiry, the Commission expanded its 
information collection efforts to gain a more comprehensive understanding of broadband availability.  
Among other things, the Commission launched a formal data collection program to gather standardized 
subscribership information from providers of broadband services through the creation of Form 477.
19
  As 
 
(continued….) 
12
 See infra para. 35. 
13
 See Section 706 Second Report, 15 FCC Rcd at 20920, para. 11; Section 706 Third Report, 17 FCC Rcd at 2850-
51, para. 9; Section 706 Fourth Report, 19 FCC Rcd at 20551. 
14
 Development of Nationwide Broadband Data to Evaluate Reasonable and Timely Deployment of Advanced 
Services to All Americans, Improvement of Wireless Broadband Subscribership Data, and Development of Data on 
Interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol, WC Docket No. 07-38, Report and Order and Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, 23 FCC Rcd 9691, 9700-01, para. 20 n.66 (2008) (2008 Broadband Data Gathering Order), 
Order on Reconsideration, 23 FCC Rcd 9800 (2008) (2008 Broadband Data Gathering Reconsideration Order). 
15
 The revised reporting tiers applicable for both uploads and downloads are:  (1) greater than 200 kbps but less than 
768 kbps; (2) equal to or greater than 768 kbps but less than 1.5 mbps; (3) equal to or greater than 1.5 mbps but less 
than 3.0 mbps; (4) equal to or greater than 3.0 mbps but less than 6.0 mbps, (5) equal to or greater than 6.0 mbps but 
less than 10.0 mbps; (6) equal to or greater than 10.0 mbps but less than 25.0 mbps; (7) equal to or greater than 25.0 
mbps but less than 100.0 mbps; and (8) equal to or greater than 100 mbps.  Additionally, providers must continue to 
report connections with download transfer rates in each of the categories above 200 kbps and upload speeds of 200 
kbps or less.  2008 Broadband Data Gathering Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 9700-02, paras. 20-22.   
16
 See Section 706 First Report, 14 FCC Rcd 2398; Section 706 Second Report, 15 FCC Rcd 20913; Section 706 
Third Report, 17 FCC Rcd 2844; Section 706 Fourth Report, 19 FCC Rcd 20540; Section 706 Fifth Report, 23 FCC 
Rcd 9615.    
17
 Section 706 First Report, 14 FCC Rcd at 2414-45, paras. 34-90.  
18
 See id. at 2402, para. 6 (“[A]t such an early stage of deployment of many broadband services, it is difficult to 
reach any firm judgment about the state of deployment.”). 
19
 Local Competition and Broadband Reporting, CC Docket No. 99-301, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 7717 
(2000).  The Commission required “facilities-based providers of ‘full broadband’ and ‘one-way broadband’ 
services” to provide broadband data on the Form 477 so long as they provided service over at least 250 broadband 
service lines (or wireless channels) in a given state, or had at least 250 broadband subscribers in a given state.  Id. at 
7730-31, para. 22.  The Commission used “full broadband” and “one-way broadband” synonymously with the 
 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-65 
 
 
5 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
initially adopted, Form 477 required covered providers to report the number of broadband connections 
they provide in each state as well as the 5-digit ZIP codes in which they had at least one customer.
20
  The 
Commission also had convened the Federal-State Joint Conference on Advanced Telecommunications 
Services (Advanced Services Joint Conference), consisting of federal and state regulators, to provide a 
forum for an ongoing dialogue among the Commission, the states, and regional and local entities 
regarding the deployment of broadband.
21
  Finally, the Commission undertook a series of in-depth case 
studies to gain a better understanding of how broadband was being deployed and used in different 
communities.
22
  In assessing the data from these and other sources, the Commission determined in the 
Section 706 Second Report that broadband deployment, which was still in its early stages, was reasonable 
and timely overall.
23
  The Commission also found, however, that not all Americans had access to 
broadband and that “the data support the troubling conclusion that market forces alone may not guarantee 
that some categories of Americans will receive timely access to advanced services.”
24
  The Commission 
“identif[ied] certain categories of Americans who [were] particularly vulnerable to not having access to 
advanced services.  These include[d] low-income consumers, those living in sparsely populated areas, 
minority consumers, Indians, persons with disabilities and those living in the U.S. territories.”
25
   
7. In 2002, the Commission’s third section 706 inquiry examined the advanced services 
marketplace using the same general framework and analysis as previous inquiries.
26
  In reaching its 
conclusion that broadband was being reasonably and timely deployed, the Commission relied upon 
standardized information from providers of broadband derived from Form 477, as well as information 
gathered from commenters, analysts, and other sources.   
8. In 2004, the Commission’s fourth section 706 inquiry included a discussion of developments 
in last-mile broadband technologies, as well as analysis of broadband deployment nationwide and in more 
specific categories, such as rural areas, schools, low-income populations, and minority groups.
27
  At that 
time, the Commission reexamined its Form 477 local competition and broadband data gathering program, 
 
current meanings of “advanced telecommunications services” and “high-speed services.”  See id. at 7731, para. 22 
n.68. 
20
 Id. at 7743-46, paras. 49-52.  In 2004 the Commission increased the amount of data collected on Form 477 and 
eliminated the thresholds that had exempted smaller providers from reporting.  Local Telephone Competition and 
Broadband Reporting, WC Docket No. 04-141, Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 22340 (2004) (2004 Broadband 
Data Gathering Order).  As discussed in greater detail below, the Commission recently significantly improved the 
granularity of the broadband data it collects on Form 477.  See infra Part III.B.1.a; 2008 Broadband Data Gathering 
Order; 2008 Broadband Data Gathering Reconsideration Order.  
21
 The Joint Conference was convened by the Commission on October 8, 1999, to further the vision of section 706 
of the 1996 Act.  See Federal-State Joint Conference on Advanced Telecommunications Services, CC Docket No. 
99-294, Order, 14 FCC Rcd 17622 (1999).  To that end, the Joint Conference held several field hearings to gather 
information on the deployment of advanced services, and issued a report regarding the availability and demand for 
broadband services in the United States.  See Broadband Services in the United States:  An Analysis of Availability 
and Demand, Federal-State Joint Conference on Advanced Services, October 2002.   
22
 Section 706 Second Report, 15 FCC Rcd at 20961-79, paras. 112-71. 
23
 Id. at 20991-1003, paras. 203-43. 
24
 Id. at 20992, para. 205. 
25
 Id. at 20918, para. 8. 
26
 Section 706 Third Report, 17 FCC Rcd at 2847-50, para. 7. 
27
 Section 706 Fourth Report, 19 FCC Rcd at 20567-76. 
 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-65 
 
 
6 
                                                
and began requiring providers to submit further information about their broadband deployments on the 
basis of speed tiers for use in future section 706 inquiries.
28
   
9. Finally, in 2008, in its fifth section 706 inquiry, the Commission evaluated broadband 
deployment by relying on the Form 477 speed tiers adopted in 2004.
29
  The report discussed industry’s 
investment in broadband deployment, noted increased subscribership, and emphasized developments in 
last-mile broadband technologies, services, applications, and devices.  Looking forward, the Commission 
anticipated an ever-greater demand for broadband services and applications.
30
  The Commission also 
acknowledged that the Form 477 data collection was being revised to enable the Commission to assess 
broadband service subscribership and availability information on a more accurate and detailed level.
31
   
10. Although the Commission’s prior section 706 reports reveal minor differences in philosophy 
and reflect modest improvements in data collection efforts, all five prior inquiries were founded on a 
definition of broadband that has evolved little over time.  In particular, most of the prior section 706 
inquiries portray broadband only as a baseline of the minimum bandwidth speed required to qualify a 
service as an “advanced” service.  Moreover, none of the inquiries was based on data capable of 
generating a comprehensive, highly-granular picture of broadband deployment in terms of geography, 
service capabilities, or other characteristics.
32
   
11. The framework and analysis the Commission employed in prior section 706 reports 
increasingly has been called into question.  For example, a 2006 report by the United States Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) found that a key difficulty in evaluating broadband deployment was the 
lack of comprehensive broadband data.
33
  In particular, the GAO Report questioned whether the 
Commission’s Form 477 data—specifically, reporting broadband subscribership at the statewide level and 
identifying broadband as available in a particular ZIP code based on the presence of a single broadband 
subscriber anywhere in that ZIP code—provided a highly accurate depiction of local deployment of 
broadband infrastructures for residential service, especially in rural areas.
34
  More recently, in the Section 
706 Fifth Report, two Commissioners dissented from the conclusion that broadband was being deployed 
 
28
 See 2004 Broadband Data Gathering Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 22347, para. 14 (requiring filers to determine what 
percentage of their broadband or high-speed connections are faster than 200 kbps in both directions, and to 
categorize these connections into five “speed tiers”); see also id. (“As these faster services are introduced, it is 
vitally important that we understand the evolving dynamics of higher speed broadband availability in order to fulfill 
our statutory responsibilities to report about whether broadband is available to all Americans.”).   
29
 Section 706 Fifth Report, 23 FCC Rcd at 9617, para. 4. 
30
 In addition, aside from its formal section 706 inquiries, the Commission has published semiannual statistical 
reports every year since 2000, summarizing the Form 477 data relating to high-speed connections (i.e., transmission 
connections to and from the Internet in excess of 200 kbps in at least one direction).  The Commission has collected 
and published information 16 times under this program.  The most recently published report, attached as Appendix,  
presents data as of June 30, 2008.  See INDUST. ANALYSIS & TECH. DIV., FCC, HIGH-SPEED SERVICES FOR INTERNET 
ACCESS:  STATUS AS OF JUNE 30, 2008, at tbls. 1, 15 (rel. July 23, 2009) (July 2009 High Speed Report). 
31
 Section 706 Fifth Report, 23 FCC Rcd at 9618, 9633, paras. 6, 35 (stating that the Commission “anticipate[d] 
being able to provide more disaggregated broadband deployment data in future [section 706] reports”). 
32
 See RURAL BROADBAND REPORT at para. 95 (recognizing that “past Section 706 Reports included an incomplete 
analysis of the broadband market and relied on data that lacked sufficient granularity”).  As explained below, the 
Commission recently has taken significant steps to improve its broadband data collection.   
33
 See generally GAO, BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT IS EXTENSIVE THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES, BUT IT IS 
DIFFICULT TO ASSESS THE EXTENT OF DEPLOYMENT GAPS IN RURAL AREAS, GAO-06-426, at 14 (May 2006) (GAO 
REPORT). 
34
 Id. at 14-18. 
 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-65 
 
 
7 
                                                
in a reasonable and timely fashion to all Americans.
35
  In addition, several public interest groups sought 
reconsideration of the Section 706 Fifth Report.
36
    
III. EVOLVING NATIONAL GOALS AND THE NEED FOR BROADBAND DATA 
12. Since the Commission’s last section 706 report, Congress and the Commission have 
emphasized the national goals of achieving ubiquitous deployment of, and increased use of, broadband.
37
  
And they have recognized the crucial role that gathering and evaluating comprehensive broadband 
deployment data will play in enabling us to meet those goals.
38
  Indeed, Congress specifically has found 
that “[i]mproving Federal data on the deployment and adoption of broadband service will assist in the 
development of broadband technology across all regions of the Nation.”
39
  While Congress, the 
Commission, and other federal agencies all have taken steps to improve broadband data collection efforts, 
as described further below, it will take some time for the full range of new data to become available.
40
  
Nevertheless, the current section 706 inquiry will benefit from—indeed, be driven by—improved 
broadband data.
41
  Comprehensive broadband data will thus serve as the foundation of our assessment of 
whether broadband is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.   
A. Broadband Statutory Developments 
1. Recovery Act – Development of the National Broadband Plan 
13. In February 2009, Congress enacted the Recovery Act (i.e., the “stimulus package”).
42
  The 
Recovery Act reflects a significant evolution in our nation’s broadband goals since Congress enacted 
section 706 in 1996.
43
  Specifically, the Recovery Act directs the Commission, by February 17, 2010, to 
develop a plan that seeks to ensure that all people of the United States have access to broadband (National 
Broadband Plan).
44
  The Commission must also establish benchmarks for meeting the national goal of 
 
(continued….) 
35
 Section 706 Fifth Report, 23 FCC Rcd at 9685-86 (dissenting statement of Comm’r Michael J. Copps); id. at 
9687-88 (dissenting statement of Comm’r Jonathan Adelstein).   
36
 Petition for Reconsideration, Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, and Free Press, GN Docket 
No. 07-45 (filed July 11, 2008) (Consumers Union Fifth Section 706 Report Reconsideration Petition) (asking the 
Commission to recognize the highly asymmetric nature of most commercially available broadband technologies, to 
address concerns that many Americans have access to just two broadband services (cable modem and digital 
subscriber line (DSL)), and to address America’s poor standing in international broadband rankings); see also 
Pleading Cycle Established for Comments on Petition for Reconsideration of the Commission’s Fifth 706 Report, 
GN Docket No. 07-45, Public Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 14589 (2008) (seeking comment on Consumers Union Section 
706 Fifth Report Reconsideration Petition).   
37
 See infra paras. 13-17.  
38
 See infra paras. 18-32. 
39
 BDIA § 102(3); 47 U.S.C. § 1301(3). 
40
 See infra Part III.B.   
41
 Future section 706 inquiries will reap even greater benefits from the many investments in broadband data 
collection being made today. 
42
 See supra note 4.   
43
 Section 706 directs the Commission to “encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced 
telecommunications capability to all Americans.”  47 U.S.C. § 1302(a).  Although the ultimate goal of section 706 is 
consistent with current national broadband goals, the Recovery Act has reshaped national priorities by bringing 
increased intensity to the national goal of ubiquitous broadband deployment. 
44
 The National Broadband Plan will include an analysis of the most effective and efficient mechanisms for ensuring 
broadband access, a detailed strategy for achieving affordability of broadband service and maximum utilization of 
 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-65 
 
 
8 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
ubiquitous broadband deployment, and must conduct its analysis of broadband deployment within certain 
parameters established by Congress.
45
  To help the Commission conduct its analysis and develop its plan, 
Congress gave the Commission access to certain broadband and other data collected by the federal 
government.
46
  In addition, the Recovery Act provides up to $7.2 billion in broadband stimulus funds to 
accelerate the deployment of broadband infrastructure and services throughout the nation.
47
  On April 8, 
2009, the Commission released a notice of inquiry seeking comment from all stakeholders, affected 
parties, and interested persons on all aspects of creating the National Broadband Plan.
48
  At the 
Commission’s July 2, 2009 Open Agenda Meeting, the Commission announced a number of measures to 
increase the level of civic engagement regarding the National Broadband Plan.
49
  Our efforts to develop 
the National Broadband Plan are well underway. 
 
(continued….) 
broadband infrastructure and service by the public, an evaluation of the status of deployment of broadband service, 
including progress of projects supported by the grants made pursuant to the Broadband Technology Opportunities 
Program, and a plan for use of broadband infrastructure and services in advancing a broad array of public interest 
goals.  Recovery Act § 6001(k)(1), (2).    
45
 Recovery Act § 6001(k)(2). 
46
 Recovery Act § 6001(k)(3).  The Recovery Act provides that “[i]n developing the plan, the Commission shall 
have access to data provided to other Government agencies under the [BDIA].”  Id.  Consequently, the Commission 
will have access to data provided to the:  (1) Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration (NTIA) for its state broadband mapping efforts; (2) GAO’s Comptroller General for its 
study on broadband metrics and standards; (3) Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Office of Advocacy for its 
study evaluating the impact of broadband speed and price on small businesses; and (4) Department of Commerce’s 
Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) for its expansion of the American Community Survey by eliciting 
information from residential households, including those located on native lands, on whether they own or use a 
computer, subscribe to Internet service, and, whether they use dial-up or broadband Internet service.  See BDIA      
§§ 103(d), 104, 105, 106(g); see also infra Parts III.B.2 & III.B.3.b.  On July 1, 2009, the Department of 
Agriculture’s (USDA) Rural Utilities Service (RUS) and NTIA released a joint Notice of Funds Availability 
(NOFA) on the Recovery Act’s broadband grant and loan programs, and, on July 2, 2009, NTIA released a NOFA 
on funding for state broadband mapping.  Both NOFAs specify that the Commission will have access to data used in 
NTIA’s Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) and in NTIA’s state broadband mapping efforts.  
See Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service, Broadband Initiatives Program, RIN:  0572-ZA01, 
Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Broadband Technology 
Opportunities Program, RIN:  0660-ZA28, Notice of Funds Availability, 74 Fed. Reg. 33104, 33123 (July 9, 2009) 
(NTIA/RUS BTOP/BIP NOFA) (“All BTOP Broadband Infrastructure awardees that offer Internet access service to 
the public for a fee must agree to participate in the State Broadband Data and Development Grant Program pursuant 
to the BDIA and section 6001(l) of the Recovery Act.”); Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications 
and Information Administration, State Broadband Data and Development Grant Program, Docket No. 0660-ZA29, 
Notice of Funds Availability, 74 Fed. Reg. 32545, 32555 (July 8, 2009) (NTIA State Mapping NOFA) (“[A]ll 
awardees agree to cooperate with NTIA and the FCC’s national broadband mapping efforts.  In particular, awardees 
agree that . . . they will coordinate with and lend reasonable assistance to NTIA and the FCC . . . in such parties’ 
efforts to assist the recipients in their data collection or to collect broadband mapping related data directly in the 
States.”). 
47
 National Broadband Plan NOI, 24 FCC Rcd at 4345, para. 9 (summarizing key provisions of the Recovery Act).  
48
 National Broadband Plan NOI.  By June 8, 2009, the Commission had received over 500 comments and by July 
21, 2009, the Commission had received over 150 replies, to the National Broadband Plan NOI.  On June 25, 2009, 
the Wireline Competition Bureau extended the reply comment deadline by two weeks.  See A National Broadband 
Plan for Our Future, Order, GN Docket No. 09-51, DA 09-1420 (WCB rel. June 25, 2009) (extending reply 
comment deadline from July 7, 2009 to July 21, 2009).   
49
 For example, the Commission intends to host at least 22 public staff workshops in August and early September 
2009, and beyond that will conduct a number of additional workshops and hearings.  The Commission has launched 
a beta version of the broadband web site (http://www.broadband.gov) and has already announced plans for 
 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-65 
 
 
9 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
14. We thus initiate this section 706 inquiry in the midst of our inquiry on the National 
Broadband Plan.
50
  It is neither possible nor desirable to consider these proceedings separate from each 
other.  The questions we ask in this Inquiry are those necessary for the Commission’s sixth section 706 
report, which will assess, based on available data, whether broadband is being deployed in a reasonable 
and timely fashion to all Americans.  The National Broadband Plan NOI sought comment on a number of 
issues relevant to this section 706 inquiry, including the interplay between the requirements of the 
Recovery Act and section 706.
51
  We will incorporate into the record of this section 706 proceeding the 
comments and other materials received in response to the National Broadband Plan NOI, and invite 
parties to cross-reference such comments as appropriate.
52
  Among the materials included in the record in 
this proceeding will be the records of the staff workshops that will be held from approximately August 6, 
2009, to September 9, 2009, on a variety of broadband related topics.
53
 
2. BDIA Revisions to the Section 706 Inquiry 
15. On October 10, 2008, Congress enacted the BDIA, which substantially revises section 706 to 
improve the quality and quantity of data the Commission collects on the deployment and adoption of 
broadband services.
54
  These revisions were based on a finding that improving “data on the deployment 
and adoption of broadband service will assist in the development of broadband technology across all 
regions of the Nation.”
55
  First, the BDIA requires the Commission to publish its section 706 reports 
 
expansion and improvement of that web site.  In addition, the Commission will be receiving a number of interim 
reports at forthcoming Open Meetings on topics related to the National Broadband Plan and has announced other 
interim targets and deadlines.  See Federal Communications Commission, The FCC and Broadband:  The Next 230 
Days, at 9-15 (2009), http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291879A1.pdf; 
http://www.broadband.gov.  The Commission also has announced that the Berkman Center for Internet and Society 
at Harvard University will help inform the Commission’s efforts in developing the National Broadband Plan by 
“conduct[ing] an independent expert review of existing literature and studies about broadband deployment and 
usage throughout the world.”  See Harvard’s Berkman Center to Conduct Independent Review of Broadband Studies 
to Assist FCC, News Release (rel. July 14, 2009) (stating that the results of the Berkman Center review will be made 
publicly available), http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291986A1.pdf. 
50
 See National Broadband Plan NOI.  
 
51
 National Broadband Plan NOI, 24 FCC Rcd at 4377, para. 108. 
52
 Consequently, if a party has adequately addressed the issues relevant to this section 706 inquiry in comments 
submitted in response to the National Broadband Plan NOI, that party can be assured that the Commission will give 
full consideration to its previously filed comments in this section 706 inquiry.  To ensure that the record created in 
this section 706 proceeding is made part of the record in the National Broadband Plan proceeding, we have cross-
docketed the two proceedings (see caption, supra) and we direct commenters to file their submissions in this Inquiry 
in both dockets.  Filing instructions are set forth below.  See infra para. 70. 
53
 See http://www.broadband.gov/workshops.html#schedule; see also supra note 49. 
54
 BDIA § 101; 47 U.S.C. § 1301.  The BDIA also directs a number of other federal agencies to take specific actions 
related to broadband, including imposing certain broadband data collection requirements on the Census Bureau and 
the SBA.  In particular, the Census Bureau, in consultation with the Commission, is required to expand the Census 
Bureau’s American Community Survey, which is an annual national survey that collects and produces population 
and housing information.  BDIA § 103(d); 47 U.S.C. § 1303(d).  The BDIA expands the American Community 
Survey by eliciting information from residential households, including those located on native lands, on whether 
they own or use a computer, subscribe to an Internet access service, and, if so, whether they use dial-up or 
broadband to connect to the Internet.  Id.  The BDIA also directs the SBA to conduct a survey evaluating the impact 
of broadband speed and price on small businesses by October 10, 2010.  BDIA § 105.   
55
 BDIA § 102(3); 47 U.S.C. § 1301(3). 
 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-65 
 
 
10 
                                                
“annually” instead of “regularly,” as previously required.
56
  As a result, the Commission will be 
conducting section 706 inquiries more often than in the past.   
16. Second, the BDIA requires the Commission to compile “demographic information for 
unserved areas” as part of the annual section 706 inquiry.
57
  Specifically, the BDIA requires that the 
Commission “compile a list of geographical areas not served by any provider of advanced 
telecommunications capability.”
58
  To the extent that Census Bureau data are available, the Commission 
must then “determine, for each such unserved area—(1) the population; (2) the population density; and 
(3) the average per capita income.”
59
   
17. Third, the BDIA requires the Commission to include an international comparison in its 
annual section 706 report.
60
  Specifically, the BDIA requires the Commission to engage in a detailed 
international comparison of the “extent of broadband service capability (including data transmission 
speeds and price for broadband service capability) in a total of 75 communities in at least 25 countries 
abroad for each of the data rate benchmarks for broadband service utilized by the Commission to reflect 
different speed tiers.”
61
  For this comparison, the BDIA directs the Commission to choose international 
communities comparable to U.S. communities with respect to population size, population density, 
topography, and demographic profile, and include “a geographically diverse selection of countries; and 
communities including the capital cities of such countries.”
62
  As part of the international comparison, the 
Commission must identify a number of specific similarities and differences in each community, including 
“their market structures, the number of competitors, the number of facilities-based providers, the types of 
technologies deployed by such providers, the applications and services those technologies enable, the 
regulatory model under which broadband service capability is provided, the types of applications and 
services used, business and residential use of such services, and other media available to consumers.”
63
  
On March 31, 2009, the Commission released a Public Notice seeking comment on how it should 
implement the BDIA’s international comparison requirement.
64
  In addition, the Commission’s 
International Bureau sent a number of letters to regulatory agencies and ministries in other countries 
asking for their cooperation in this task.
65
  International Bureau staff also are continuing to gather 
broadband and other related information from various sources.
66
 
 
(continued….) 
56
 BDIA § 103(a)(1); 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b).  Prior to the enactment of the BDIA, section 706 directed the 
Commission to conduct a regular inquiry, rather than an annual inquiry, as to whether advanced telecommunications 
capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.  Compare 47 U.S.C. § 157 nt. 
(2008) with 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b).  
57
 BDIA § 103(a)(3); 47 U.S.C. § 1302(c).  
58
 BDIA § 103(a)(3); 47 U.S.C. § 1302(c). 
59
 BDIA § 103(a)(3); 47 U.S.C. § 1302(c).  
60
 BDIA § 103(b); 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b). 
61
 BDIA § 103(b); 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b).  
62
 BDIA § 103(b)(2); 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b)(2).   
63
 BDIA § 103(b)(3); 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b)(3). 
64
 Comment Sought on International Comparison and Consumer Survey Requirements in the Broadband Data 
Improvement Act, GN Docket No. 09-47, Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 3908 (2009) (BDIA Public Notice).  
Comments were received by April 10, 2009, and replies were received by April 17, 2009. 
65
 See, e.g., Letter from John Giusti, Acting Bureau Chief, International Bureau, FCC, to Mr. Jen-Kwey Hong, 
Director, Department of Planning, National Communications Commission, Taiwan, GN Docket No. 09-47 (rel. May 
13, 2009); Letter from John Giusti, Acting Bureau Chief, International Bureau, FCC, to Dr. Ahmed Hiasat, 
 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-65 
 
 
11 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
B. Comprehensive Broadband Data Collection 
18. Since the last section 706 report, the Commission and Congress each have taken steps to 
improve the quality of broadband data that are gathered.  As described above, Congress also has 
delineated additional analysis that must be included in section 706 reports that will rely, in part, on these 
new data.  As described below, these data gathering improvements will greatly enhance the quality of the 
broadband data that inform the Commission’s section 706 inquiries, as well as the resulting reports.     
1. Commission Broadband Data Collection  
a. Form 477 Data Collection 
19. In June 2008, the Commission issued an order revising the Form 477 data collection,
67
 and 
began collecting data using this revised form in March 2009.  The revisions to Form 477 increased the 
precision and quality of the broadband subscribership data the Commission collects from broadband 
services providers.
68
   
20. First, the revised Form 477 collects information regarding an expanded number of broadband 
reporting speed tiers compared to prior iterations of Form 477.  The new speed tiers capture more precise 
information about the upload and download speeds that are available to customers.
69
  Second, the revised 
Form 477 requires wired, fixed wireless, and satellite broadband service providers to report numbers of 
broadband subscribers by Census Tract,
70
 broken down by speed tier and technology type.
71
  Formerly, 
these broadband providers were only required to list those ZIP codes where they provided service to at 
 
Chairman and CEO, Telecommunications Regulatory Commission, Jordan, GN Docket No. 09-47 (rel. May 14, 
2009); Letter from John Giusti, Acting Bureau Chief, International Bureau, FCC, to Lorena Pineiro Ugarte, Head of 
International Affairs Department, Undersecretariat of Telecommunications, Chile, GN Docket No. 09-47 (rel. May 
14, 2009). 
66
 See, e.g., Letter from David M. Don, Senior Director, Public Policy, Comcast Corporation, to Marlene H. Dortch, 
Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 09-47 (filed June 9, 2009); Letter from Dr. Herbert Kubicek, Institut für 
Informationsmanagement Bremen GmbH, Bremen, Germany, GN Docket No. 09-47 (filed June 16, 2009). 
67
 2008 Broadband Data Gathering Order, 23 FCC Rcd 9691.   
68
 See FCC Form 477, Instructions for September 1, 2009 Filing, at 2 (explaining the types of entities that must 
provide broadband data on their Form 477 submissions), http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form477/477inst.pdf (FCC 
Form 477 Instructions).   
69
 Form 477 instructions direct all Form 477 broadband filers to place broadband connections into speed categories 
based on the authorized maximum information transfer rate of the end user’s broadband connection.  See supra note 
15 (setting forth the revised speed tiers).   
70
  The Census Bureau defines a Census Tract as a “small, relatively permanent statistical subdivision of a county 
delineated by a local committee of census data users for the purpose of presenting data.  Census Tract boundaries 
normally follow visible features, but may follow governmental unit boundaries and other non-visible features in 
some instances; they always nest within counties.  Designed to be relatively homogeneous units with respect to 
population characteristics, economic status, and living conditions at the time of establishment, Census Tracts 
average about 4,000 inhabitants.  They may be split by any sub-county geographic entity.”  U.S. Census Bureau, 
http://factfinder.census.gov/home/en/epss/glossary_c.html (last visited July 29, 2009).  The Commission selected 
census-based units over ZIP codes for several reasons, including their stability, and their ability to be correlated with 
demographic data (e.g., race, income, education, and Tribal land status) that provide policymakers with additional 
tools to analyze broadband uptake.  2008 Broadband Data Gathering Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 9696-97, para. 12. 
71
 Technology types include:  (1) Asymmetric xDSL; (2) Symmetric xDSL; (3) Other Wireline (copper-wire based); 
(4) Cable Modem; (5) Optical Carrier (fiber to the home or business end user); (6) Satellite; (7) Terrestrial Fixed 
Wireless; (8) Terrestrial Mobile Wireless; (9) Electric Power Line; and (10) All Other.  FCC Form 477 Instructions 
at 7-8. 
 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-65 
 
 
12 
                                                
least one subscriber and to provide broadband connection totals by state.
72
  Third, the revisions to Form 
477 improve the accuracy of information the Commission gathers about mobile wireless broadband 
deployment, including by specifying which subscriptions must be reported as broadband subscriptions,
73
 
by modifying how residential connections should be counted,
74
 and by requiring reporting by Census 
Tract of the provider’s coverage area(s).
75
  Mobile wireless broadband service providers must report, by 
state and by speed tier, the number of broadband service subscriptions and the percentage of the 
subscriptions that are residential.
76
  Formerly, mobile wireless providers were required to report the 
number of their mobile wireless broadband service subscribers in each state, as well as the ZIP codes that 
best represented the filers’ mobile wireless broadband coverage areas.
77
  Fourth, in June 2008, the 
Commission released a sua sponte reconsideration order that requires wired, fixed wireless, and satellite 
Form 477 filers to report the percentage of connections that are residential connections, in each broadband 
speed tier in each Census Tract.
78
 
21. Broadband providers must file Form 477 twice each year.  The Commission staff are in the 
process of analyzing the first round of Form 477 filings under these new rules, which were due March 16, 
2009.  The next Form 477 data filings are due on September 1, 2009.  We expect that analysis of the first 
set of revised Form 477 data will be included in the Section 706 Sixth Report. 
b. Mobile Broadband Network Coverage Maps and Data 
22. In addition to our Form 477 data collection, the Commission tracks the deployment of mobile 
wireless broadband networks using network coverage data acquired through a contract with an 
independent consulting firm.
79
  With this information, the Commission is able to estimate, at the Census 
Block level, the percentage of the U.S. population and geographic area covered by various mobile 
broadband network technologies.  A Census Block is the smallest geographic entity for which the Census 
 
72
 See, e.g., 2008 Broadband Data Gathering Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 9693, para. 6. 
73
 In the revised Form 477, plans that provide access to the lawful Internet content of the subscriber’s choice are 
distinguished from plans that allow access only to limited online offerings, such as downloading ringtones and 
games, and text and multimedia messaging.  The Commission clarified that terrestrial mobile wireless providers 
must report the number of subscribers with broadband-capable devices.  The Commission also directed terrestrial 
mobile wireless providers to report, separately, the number of monthly (or longer term) subscriptions that include a 
data plan to reach the lawful Internet content of the subscriber’s choice.  Id. at 9703-04, para. 23. 
74
 The Commission directed mobile wireless broadband providers to report as residential subscriptions “those 
subscriptions that are not billed to a corporate account, to a non-corporate business customer account, or to a 
government or institutional account.”  Id. at 9704, para. 24.
 
  
75
 Id. at 9698, para. 16 (stating that at the Census Tract level of detail, the mobile wireless broadband providers must 
report the tracts that “best represent their broadband service footprint for each of the speed tiers in which they offer 
service”).  
76
 Id.   
77
 2004 Broadband Data Gathering Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 22350, para. 18. 
78
 2008 Broadband Data Gathering Reconsideration Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 9802, para. 7.   
79
 The consulting firm is American Roamer, which tracks service provision for mobile voice and mobile data 
services.  The Thirteenth CMRS Competition Report describes how the Commission analyzes mobile network 
coverage.  See Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993; Annual Report 
and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions with Respect to Commercial Mobile Services, WT Docket No.      
08-27, Thirteenth Report, DA 09-54, paras. 37-39, 144-47 (WTB rel. Jan. 16, 2009) (Thirteenth CMRS Competition 
Report). 
 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-65 
 
 
13 
t for 
et, and 
 
rvices.  
                                                
Bureau tabulates census data, and there are more than eight million Census Blocks in the United States.
80
  
The results of the Commission’s analysis of mobile network deployment are included in its Annual CMRS 
Competition Reports.
81
 
c. Cable System Broadband Data 
23. The Commission also annually collects data on cable system architecture from a sample of 
cable systems using FCC Form 325.
82
  In particular, providers report on a system-wide basis information 
such as the overall size of the coaxial and fiber cable plant, the average number of subscribers served 
from the nodes, the total bandwidth of the cable system, whether the provider offers cable modem service, 
and, if so, the number of cable modem subscribers and the number of leased cable modems.
83
  In 
addition, the Act requires the Commission to assess annually the status of competition in the marke
the delivery of video programming.
84
  Most recently, on January 16, 2009, the Commission requested 
data on the status of competition in the market for the delivery of video programming for 2007; similar 
data for years 2008 and 2009 were requested on April 9, 2009.
85
  These notices seek information on, 
among other things, the broadband service offerings of multichannel video programming distributors 
(MVPDs), all of which is provided on a voluntary basis.  The Commission also collects information on 
cable broadband services as part of its annual survey of cable industry prices.
86
  The survey collects 
information at the cable system level and includes questions regarding the number of video, Intern
telephony customers served over cable facilities, system capacity, speed of Internet service, and package
prices of video, Internet, and telephony se
87
d. Consumer Broadband Registry 
24. As explained in the 2008 Broadband Data Gathering Order, the Commission determined to 
create a voluntary consumer broadband registry that households may use to report availability and speed 
of broadband Internet access service at their premises.
88
  This voluntary registry will enable households to 
use the telephone, mail, e-mail, or the Internet to report the apparent unavailability of broadband service 
 
80
 See Thirteenth CMRS Competition Report, para. 37. 
81
 See id. at paras. 37-39, 144-47. 
82
 See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review—Annual Report of Cable Television Systems, Form 325, filed Pursuant to 
Section 76.403 of the Commission’s Rules, CS Docket No. 98-61, Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 4720 (1999); see 
id. at 4726, para. 12 (explaining that the Commission requires all cable systems with over 20,000 subscribers to 
submit Form 325 and uses sampling techniques to obtain information regarding cable systems with fewer 
subscribers). 
83
 See id.   
84
 See 47 U.S.C. § 548(g).  
85
 See Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, MB 
Docket No. 07-269, Notice of Inquiry, 24 FCC Rcd 750 (2009); Supplemental Notice of Inquiry, 24 FCC Rcd 4401 
(2009). 
86
 Implementation of Section 3 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, 
Statistical Report on Average Rates for Basic Service, Cable Programming Service, and Equipment, MM Docket 
No. 92-266, Report on Cable Industry Prices, 24 FCC Rcd 259 (2009).  The survey reports on a random sample of 
cable systems serving approximately 750 communities nationwide, which is selected to be representative of the 
distribution of cable subscribers nationwide in terms of small and large cable systems and competition. 
87
 See, e.g., FCC Media Bureau, COALS Electronic Filing System User Manual, Version 1.0, Chap. 7 (Sept. 12, 
2003), http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/csb/coals/docs/coalsweb.pdf. 
88
 2008 Broadband Data Gathering Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 9699, para. 18. 
 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-65 
 
 
14 
                                                
for their locations, as well as information about existing broadband service, such as the type and actual 
speed of Internet access service they use.  This consumer broadband registry currently is under 
development by the Commission.   
2. Broadband Mapping Efforts   
25. The Recovery Act directs the NTIA of the Department of Commerce to create “a 
comprehensive nationwide inventory map of existing broadband service capability and availability” that 
shows the geographic extent to which that capability is deployed and available for each state.
89
  By 
February 2011, NTIA must make this inventory map accessible to the public on an NTIA website in a 
form that is both interactive and searchable.
90
  NTIA is further required to establish a grant program for 
state-level broadband availability mapping and other broadband related projects.
91
  On July 2, 2009, 
NTIA released the NTIA State Mapping NOFA setting forth the parameters to “fund projects that gather 
comprehensive and accurate State-level broadband mapping data, develop State-level broadband maps, 
[and] aid in the development and maintenance of a national broadband map, and fund statewide initiatives 
for broadband planning.”
92
  Awardees under this program will be required to “submit all of their collected 
data to NTIA for use by NTIA and the [Commission] in developing and maintaining the national 
broadband map, which will be displayed on an NTIA Web page before February 17, 2011.”
93
   
26. Although the NTIA’s broadband map may not be available in time for the Section 706 Sixth 
Report, a number of other organizations have begun to map broadband availability and related 
information, some of which have data available now.
94
  The entities vary, although most of them are 
public-private partnerships,
95
 or task forces established by a governor and similarly comprised of 
community, government, and broadband industry representatives.
96
  For instance, the USDA hosts an 
 
(continued….) 
89
 Recovery Act § 6001(l); see also BDIA §§ 106(e)(10), (g); 47 U.S.C. § 1304(e)(10), (g); National Broadband 
Plan NOI, 24 FCC Rcd at 4364-65, para. 61. 
90
 Recovery Act § 6001(l).   
91
 BDIA § 106; 47 U.S.C. § 1304; Recovery Act § 6001(l). 
92
 NTIA State Mapping NOFA, 74 Fed. Reg. at 32547; see also id. (explaining that the State Broadband Data 
Program “is a competitive, merit-based matching grant program that implements the joint purposes of the Recovery 
Act and the BDIA through the award of grants”). 
93
 Id. at 32546.  We note that section 106(h) of the BDIA requires the Commission to provide eligible entities 
involved in state broadband mapping efforts access to aggregate Form 477 data.  See BDIA § 106(h); 47 U.S.C. 
§ 1304(h).  On July 17, 2009, the Wireline Competition Bureau released a Public Notice seeking comment on how 
the Commission should implement this particular section of the BDIA.  Comment Sought on Providing Eligible 
Entities Access to Aggregate Form 477 Data as Required by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, WC Docket No. 
07-38; GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, Public Notice, DA 09-1550 (WCB rel. July 17, 2009); see also Dates 
Established for Comment on Providing Eligible Entities Access to Aggregate Form 477 Data as Required by the 
Broadband Data Improvement Act, WC Docket No. 07-38; GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, Public Notice, DA 09-
1598 (WCB rel. July 24, 2009) (stating that comments were due July 30, 2009, and reply comments were due 
August 4, 2009). 
94
 See RURAL BROADBAND REPORT at para. 103; INSTITUTE FOR REGULATORY POLICY STUDIES, ILLINOIS STATE 
UNIVERSITY, BROADBAND ACCESS IN ILLINOIS (2007), 
http://www.irps.ilstu.edu/broadband/IRPS%20Broadband%20Report%20080907.pdf; E-NC, BROADBAND ACCESS 
IN NORTH CAROLINA, http://e-ncbroadband.org/ (last visited July 29, 2009). 
95
 See RURAL BROADBAND REPORT at para. 103. 
96
 See, e.g., CALIFORNIA BROADBAND TASK FORCE, THE STATE OF CONNECTIVITY, BUILDING INNOVATION 
THROUGH BROADBAND, FINAL REPORT (2008), www.calink.ca.gov/pdf/CBTF_FINAL_Report.pdf; 
 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-65 
 
 
15 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
interactive map of USDA and United States Department of Housing and Urban Development projects 
funded by the Recovery Act.
97
  In addition, a number of state public utility commissions also map 
broadband availability,
98
 as do certain state-sponsored initiatives.
99
  Apart from mapping, these 
organizations generally seek to promote broadband deployment throughout their states, particularly in 
rural areas.  These organizations typically rely on voluntary submissions of data on residential broadband 
availability, and the entities collecting the data often sign non-disclosure agreements and make other 
commitments (such as agreeing to depict only aggregated data) in response to providers’ requests for 
confidentiality.
100
  Many of these mapping efforts have resulted in useful maps of network broadband 
availability, although we are aware of no state that requires all broadband providers to submit broadband 
availability data.  It also is possible that some state-sponsored and private mapping efforts may not 
encompass all areas or all providers within a particular state.
101
  We note also that certain commenters in 
the Commission’s broadband availability mapping proceeding question the independence and 
effectiveness of many of the non-governmental broadband mapping organizations.
102
  
3. Other Broadband Data Gathering Efforts  
27. Congress recently enacted additional broadband data gathering requirements and ordered 
special studies.  We limit our review here to those requirements and initiatives that are likely to inform 
our section 706 inquiry more directly.
103
   
a. Commission Consumer Survey  
28. The BDIA requires the Commission to conduct a periodic consumer survey for the purpose of 
evaluating, on a statistically significant basis, the national characteristics of the use of broadband service 
capability.
104
  The results of the consumer survey must be made public at least once per year.
105
  The 
survey must include urban, suburban, and rural areas in the large business, small business, and residential 
consumer markets.  It must, at a minimum, ask questions to determine the types of technology used for 
the services consumers choose, amounts paid, actual speeds, and the most frequently used applications 
 
COMMONWEALTH BROADBAND ROUNDTABLE, FINAL REPORT (2008), 
http://www.otpba.vi.virginia.gov/pdf/Governor_report.pdf.  
97
 See United States Department of Agriculture, USDA and HUD ARRA Projects Map, 
http://www.usda.gov/recovery/map/ (last visited July 29, 2009). 
98
 See, e.g., VT DEP’T OF PUB. SERV., APPROXIMATE BROADBAND AVAILABILITY IN VERMONT—2006 (2007), 
http://publicservice.vermont.gov/cable/broadband_availability_map.html.pdf (providing a map of broadband 
availability) (last visited July 29, 2009). 
99
 See, e.g., e-NC Authority, Who We Are, http://www.e-nc.org/WhoWeAre.asp (last visited July 29, 2009). 
100
 RURAL BROADBAND REPORT at para. 103. 
101
 See id. at para. 104 (“recogniz[ing] the importance of including all rural areas, particularly Tribal lands, in 
federal mapping efforts”). 
102
 Id. at para. 103.  
103
 The Commission also seeks data on the satellite industry for its Annual Satellite Competition Reports, which 
examine, among other things, the reach of satellite-based, two-way broadband to the home.  E.g., Annual Report and 
Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions with Respect to Domestic and International Satellite Communications 
Services, IB Docket No. 07-252, Second Report, 23 FCC Rcd 15170 (2008).  This is an annual report to Congress 
about competitive market conditions with respect to domestic and international satellite communications services, 
and is not primarily designed as a broadband data gathering tool. 
104
 BDIA § 103(c)(1); 47 U.S.C. § 1303(c)(1) .   
105
 BDIA § 103(c)(2); 47 U.S.C. § 1303(c)(2) .   
 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-65 
 
 
16 
                                                
and services.  It also must ask consumers why they do not subscribe to broadband service and what non-
subscription broadband they use.
106
  As noted above, on March 31, 2009, the Commission released a 
Public Notice seeking comment on how it should implement the consumer survey requirements in the 
BDIA and will implement this provision of the BDIA in the near future.
107
  To the extent available, the 
results of this consumer survey also will inform our section 706 report.   
b. GAO Broadband Metrics and Standards Study     
29. The BDIA requires the GAO’s Comptroller General to conduct a study on broadband metrics 
and standards and submit a report to Congress on the results of its study by October 10, 2009.
108
  The 
study will evaluate the “broadband metrics that may be used by industry and the Federal Government 
[including the Commission] to provide users with more accurate information about the cost and capability 
of their broadband connection[s], and to better compare the deployment and penetration of broadband in 
the United States with other countries.”
109
   
30. As part of that effort, the GAO is required to consider potential standards or metrics that may 
be used:   
(1) to calculate the average price per megabit per second of broadband offerings;  
(2) to reflect the average actual speed of broadband offerings compared to 
advertised potential speeds and to consider factors affecting speed that may be 
outside the control of a broadband provider;  
(3) to compare, using comparable metrics and standards, the availability and 
quality of broadband offerings in the United States with the availability and 
quality of broadband offerings in other industrialized nations, including countries 
that are members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
Development; and  
 
106
 BDIA § 103(c)(1); 47 U.S.C. § 1303(c)(1).  Specifically, section 103(c)(1) of the BDIA states:  “For the purpose 
of evaluating, on a statistically significant basis, the national characteristics of the use of broadband service 
capability, the Commission shall conduct and make public periodic surveys of consumers in urban, suburban, and 
rural areas in the large business, small business, and residential consumer markets to determine—(A) the types of 
technology used to provide the broadband service capability to which consumers subscribe; (B) the amounts 
consumers pay per month for such capability; (C) the actual data transmission speeds of such capability; (D) the 
types of applications and services consumers most frequently use in conjunction with such capability; (E) for 
consumers who have declined to subscribe to broadband service capability, the reasons given by such consumers for 
declining such capability; (F) other sources of broadband service capability which consumers regularly use or on 
which they rely; and (G) any other information the Commission deems appropriate for such purpose.”  BDIA 
§ 103(c)(1); 47 U.S.C. § 1303(c)(1).   
107
 BDIA Public Notice; see also supra note 64. 
108
 BDIA § 104(b).  Specifically, the BDIA states that, “[n]ot later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
Act, the Comptroller General shall submit a report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce on the results of the study.”  
Id.       
109
 BDIA § 104(a). 
 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-65 
 
 
17 
                                                
(4) to distinguish between complementary and substitutable broadband offerings 
in evaluating deployment and penetration.
110
   
31. The GAO also is required to provide specific “recommendations for how industry and the 
Federal Communications Commission can use such metrics and comparisons to improve the quality of 
broadband data and to better evaluate the deployment and penetration of comparable broadband service at 
comparable rates across all regions of the Nation.”
111
  We anticipate taking into account in the present 
Inquiry any data included by the GAO in its report. 
4. Other Broadband Legislation and Ongoing Commission Efforts 
32. Congress and the Commission have taken a number of additional actions related to broadband 
that may be relevant to this Inquiry.  Because we summarized these actions in the recent National 
Broadband NOI, there is no need to repeat that discussion here.
112
   
IV. SPECIFIC ISSUES FOR INQUIRY   
33. The fundamental issue we address is whether advanced telecommunications capability is 
being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.  To guide our inquiry, we break this 
fundamental issue down into its component parts and seek comment on each of them specifically.  In the 
following paragraphs we ask:   
(1) How should we define “advanced telecommunications capability” or “broadband?”  
(2) Is broadband available to all Americans?  
(3) Is the current level of broadband deployment reasonable and timely?  
(4) What actions, if any, should the Commission take to accelerate broadband deployment? 
(5) What actions should the Commission take to improve its regular broadband data collection 
efforts? 
In seeking comment, we solicit information according to the framework of section 706, as amended by 
the BDIA.  This inquiry also will be guided by the recent Congressional and Commission actions 
described above.  We also invite the Advanced Services Joint Conference to submit any information that 
it deems appropriate into this docket.  We ask all parties to provide data to support their assertions 
whenever possible. 
A. What Is Advanced Telecommunications Capability or Broadband? 
34. Section 706(c)(1) defines advanced telecommunications capability “without regard to any 
transmission media or technology, as high-speed, switched, broadband telecommunications capability that 
enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, graphics, and video telecommunications using 
any technology.”
113
  Previous section 706 reports relied on static definitions of advanced 
telecommunications capability, which were tied to a specific transmission speed cut off.
114
  The 
 
(continued….) 
110
 BDIA § 104(a). 
111
 BDIA § 104(b). 
112
 See National Broadband Plan NOI, 24 FCC Rcd at 4384, Appendix; see also supra para. 13.   
113
 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d)(1).  
114
  See, e.g., Section 706 Fourth Report, 19 FCC Rcd at 20551-52; Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of 
Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible 
 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-65 
 
 
18 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
Commission has used the terms “advanced telecommunications capability,” “advanced services,” and 
“broadband” to describe services and facilities with both an upstream (customer-to-provider) and a 
downstream (provider-to-customer) transmission speed of more than 200 kbps.
115
  The Commission has 
also used the term “high-speed” to describe services and facilities with more than 200 kbps capability in 
at least one direction.
116
  In the Section 706 Fifth Report, the Commission for the first time evaluated 
advanced telecommunications capability by speed tiers, including a “basic broadband tier 1” of services 
equal to or greater than 768 kbps but less than 1.5 mbps in the faster direction.
117
  In light of the 
broadband goals and data collection efforts discussed above, we seek comment on how to define 
“advanced telecommunications capability” and “broadband” for purposes of our sixth section 706 report.  
35. Depending on the context, Congress and the Commission have used a variety of terms to 
refer to similar capabilities, including “advanced telecommunications capability,”
118
 “broadband,”
119
 and 
“high-speed” services.
120
  We seek comment on whether such terms should have a unified definition in 
the section 706 report.  We also seek comment on whether these terms should have the same meanings 
ascribed to them in other Commission proceedings (at least on a going-forward basis).  In particular, we 
seek comment on whether the Commission should use the same definitions in both the section 706 
inquiry and the National Broadband Plan proceedings.  In the National Broadband Plan NOI, we sought 
comment about how to define “broadband” in the context of developing the National Broadband Plan.
121
  
For example, we asked whether the definition of broadband should be tied to “a numerical definition or an 
experiential metric;”
122
 whether it should include a “dependability metric;”
123
 and whether the definition 
should account for differences in technology, service to residential and business customers, or service to 
urban, suburban, and rural areas.
124
  Further, some of the key definitional questions regarding “advanced 
telecommunications capability,” which we discuss in more detail below, may echo similar questions 
asked in the National Broadband Plan NOI.  As explained above, we will incorporate responses to the 
National Broadband Plan NOI into our record here and will consider comments on how to define 
 
Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, GN Docket 
No. 07-45, Notice of Inquiry, 22 FCC Rcd 7816, 7819, para. 12 (2007) (Section 706 Fifth NOI). 
115
 See, e.g., Section 706 Fourth Report, 19 FCC Rcd at 20551; see also supra para. 4. 
116
 See supra para. 4. 
117
 See Section 706 Fifth Report, 23 FCC Rcd at 9617, para. 4 (finding it appropriate “to evaluate broadband 
deployment by monitoring the migration of customers and services to higher speed tiers”); see also 2008 Broadband 
Data Gathering Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 9701, para. 20 n.66 (using the term “basic broadband tier 1” to refer to 
services equal to or greater than 768 kbps but less than 1.5 mbps in the faster direction). 
118
 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d)(1).  
119
 See 2008 Broadband Data Gathering Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 9701, para. 20 n.66.   
120
 See, e.g., Section 706 Fifth Report, 23 FCC Rcd at 9616, para. 2 (discussing the use of these terms generally); 
2008 Broadband Data Gathering Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 9701, para. 20 n.66 (using the term “basic broadband”);  47 
U.S.C. § 1301 (referring to “broadband” in the BDIA findings); 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d) (defining “advanced 
telecommunications capability” for purposes of the section 706 inquiry); Recovery Act § 6001(k)(2) (referring to 
“broadband capability”). 
121
 See National Broadband Plan NOI, 24 FCC Rcd at 4346-48, paras. 15-22. 
122
 Id. at 4347, para. 17 (characterizing experiential metrics as “based on the consumer’s ability to access 
sufficiently robust data for certain identifiable broadband services”).   
123
 Id. at 4348, para. 19.   
124
 Id. at 4347-48, para. 19. 
 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-65 
 
 
19 
                                                
“advanced telecommunications capability” or “broadband” in that proceeding in response to this Inquiry 
as well.
125
   
36. We also seek comment on the definitions of broadband used by other government agencies 
and whether we should adopt such definitions for the purposes of our section 706 inquiry.  For example, 
the USDA’s RUS regulations for the Community Connect Grant Program provide that “Broadband 
Transmission Service means providing an information-rate equivalent to at least 200 kilobits/second in 
the consumer’s connection to the network, both from the provider to the consumer (downstream) and 
from the consumer to the provider (upstream).”
126
  The joint NTIA and RUS NOFA for broadband grants, 
released on July 1, 2009, defines broadband as “providing two-way data transmission with advertised 
speeds of at least 768 kilobits per second (kbps) downstream and at least 200 kbps upstream to end users, 
or providing sufficient capacity in a middle mile project to support the provision of broadband service to 
end users.”
127
  The NTIA NOFA on state broadband mapping efforts, released on July 2, 2009, contains 
essentially the same definition of broadband.
128
  We also seek comment on whether we should consider 
definitions of broadband used by other countries and how such definitions might inform our definitions.  
How should these definitions and concepts inform our definition of “advanced telecommunications 
capability” or “broadband” in the section 706 context? 
37. To the extent broadband should be defined by “speed,” should we consider raising the 
minimum speed we have used to define broadband in past section 706 inquiries?  We seek comment on 
whether our definition should be static or dynamic (from report to report), with speed tiers that account 
for changes over time in technology, available applications, or consumer usage and demand.  In 
particular, should broadband be defined by reference to the new Form 477 speed tiers?  If so, which of the 
new speed tiers should be considered to be broadband?  As the data available to the Commission become 
more detailed, to what extent should the Commission aggregate or disaggregate those data in its section 
706 reports?  Section 706(c)(1) defines advanced telecommunications capability as capability that enables 
users to both “originate” and “receive” certain advanced services.  As mentioned above, certain public 
interest groups have argued that most commercially available broadband technologies offer insufficient 
upstream capability to enable consumers to originate high-quality video content.
129
  Should the definition 
focus on downstream capabilities, upstream capabilities, or both?  Should the upstream and downstream 
capabilities be symmetrical?  To the extent broadband is defined by speed tiers, how should it account for 
upstream and downstream speeds?   
38. Section 706(c)(1) specifies that advanced telecommunications capability is defined “without 
regard to any transmission media or technology,” and includes the provision of certain advanced services 
“using any technology.”  We seek comment on whether, consistent with the statute, we may define 
“broadband” to account for different types of transmission technologies.  If so, should our definition 
account for the fact that a range of technologies may be used to provide services in a variety of 
situations?
130
  For example, should a different set of standards be used to identify mobile broadband 
 
(continued….) 
125
 As previously noted, a party that has filed comments in response to the National Broadband Plan NOI can be 
assured that the Commission will give full consideration to its previously filed comments in this section 706 inquiry.  
See supra para. 14. 
126
 7 C.F.R § 1739.3. 
127
 NTIA/RUS BTOP/BIP NOFA, 74 Fed. Reg. at 33108. 
128
 NTIA State Mapping NOFA, 74 Fed. Reg. at 32548; see id. Technical App. at 32557, 32560, 32562. 
129
 See Consumers Union Section 706 Fifth Report Reconsideration Petition at 2.   
130
 Broadband deployments include wireless broadband services offered using the Advanced Wireless Service, 700 
megahertz (MHz), Broadband Radio Service (BRS), Personal Communication Services (PCS), Cellular, 3650-3700 
MHz, or unlicensed (including TV White Spaces) spectrum bands.  Wireless broadband services typically rely on 
 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-65 
 
 
20 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
services—which allow mobility or portability but may have lower throughputs—and fixed broadband 
services?  How should the definition account for satellite technology, which has wide-spread geographic 
availability but comparatively limited bandwidth and relatively high latency?  To what extent does the 
widespread adoption of new Internet-based applications, over time, influence the definition of what 
“advanced” means to consumers? 
39. Broadband capability is not necessarily limited to broadband Internet access services offered 
to end users.
131
  Does broadband include the special access services from one or more incumbent LECs, 
wireless services providers, or other carriers that Internet service providers (ISPs) purchase to transmit 
end-user traffic to Internet backbone service providers?  The term “middle mile” has been used to 
describe the facilities necessary to connect broadband providers to Internet access points.  For example, 
the Rural Broadband Report described broadband middle mile facilities as broadband “facilities that are 
commonly used to connect the ‘last mile’ ISP with an Internet backbone service provider.”
132
  How 
should we define the term middle mile?  Alternatively, to what extent should middle mile and special 
access facilities and services be included in the definition of broadband?  What differences, if any, are 
there between middle mile and special access facilities and services?  We seek comment on how parties 
use, or would like to use, middle mile and special access facilities and services to deliver broadband.  
What types of technologies are typically used for middle mile connections?  How do the capabilities of 
and needs for middle mile and special access services vary among rural, urban, and suburban 
environments?  How do the availability of middle mile and special access facilities and services affect the 
delivery of broadband services to end users?  Are there areas of the country where middle mile and 
special access facilities are not available or are prohibitively expensive?  We ask parties to submit data to 
support their assertions.  What other middle mile and special access issues are relevant to the section 706 
inquiry? 
40. We seek comment on whether there are patterns of consumer adoption and usage of services 
utilizing broadband.  How and why do consumers, both individuals and businesses, adopt and use 
services utilizing broadband?  Do broadband adoption rates vary by type of consumer, and, if so, why?  
For example, we seek comment on whether adoption rates vary for minority consumers, persons with 
disabilities, individuals living on Tribal lands, low-income consumers, or consumers of different age 
 
Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access (WiMAX), Long Term Evolution (LTE), High Speed Packet 
Access (HSPA), CDMA Evolution-Data Optimized (EV-DO), or Wi-Fi technologies.  Broadband deployments 
further include those offered using fiber, DSL, cable (e.g., Data-Over-Cable Service Interface Specification 
(DOCSIS) 3.0), or Broadband over Power Line (BPL) technologies.   
131
 See, e.g., Section 706 Third Report, 17 FCC Rcd at 2853-54, paras. 14-16; see also id. at 2853, para. 14 
(explaining that “[a]dvanced services are provided using a variety of public and private networks that rely on 
different network architectures and transmission paths”). 
132
 RURAL BROADBAND REPORT at para. 114; see also Section 706 Third Report, 17 FCC Rcd at 2853-54, paras. 15-
16 (distinguishing between “long haul communications transport facilities, middle mile, last mile, and last 100 feet” 
and stating that “middle mile facilities provide relatively fast, large-capacity connections between long haul facilities 
and last mile” and that “[m]iddle mile facilities can range from a few miles to a few hundred miles.  They are often 
constructed of fiber optic lines, but microwave and satellite links can be used as well.”); NTIA State Mapping 
NOFA, Technical App. 74 Fed. Reg. at 32562 (defining “middle-mile and backbone interconnection points” 
collectively as providing “connectivity between . . . a service provider’s network elements (or segments) or . . . 
between a service provider’s network and another provider’s network, including the Internet backbone” and noting 
that “[m]iddle mile and backbone interconnection points typically enable relatively fast data rates, are built to handle 
substantial capacities, and may be service-quality assured”); NTIA/RUS BTOP/BIP NOFA, 74 Fed. Reg. at 33109 
(defining a middle mile project as “a broadband infrastructure project that does not predominantly provide 
broadband service to end users or to end-user devices, and may include interoffice transport, backhaul, Internet 
connectivity, or special access”).   
 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-65 
 
 
21 
                                                
groups.
133
  We also seek comment on how education level affects adoption rates.  In addition, the 
widespread adoption of new Internet-based applications, over time, may influence the definition of what 
“advanced” means.  We invite parties to provide references to scholarly studies and hard data that 
describe consumers’ use and adoption of broadband and demonstrate what applications consumers are 
adopting and using.  For example, the PEW/Internet & American Life Project regularly conducts surveys 
and publishes research on Americans’ broadband connections and use of the Internet.
134
  We seek 
comment on how such research efforts should inform the definition of broadband and, more generally, 
our section 706 inquiry.   
41. With technology developing at a rapid pace, it is important that our definition of broadband 
remain relevant and not be rendered obsolete by shifts in technological platforms or other new 
technological advances.  We thus seek comment on how our definition can best be designed to remain 
sufficiently flexible to account for the continuously evolving technological environment.  In addressing 
this issue, commenters should discuss the extent to which any changes to the definition of broadband 
would affect the Commission’s ability to perform year-over-year analyses of the relevant data. 
B. Is Broadband Available to All Americans? 
1. Definition of Availability  
42. Section 706(b) requires the Commission to conduct an “inquiry concerning the availability of 
advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans.”
135
  In the Section 706 First Report, the 
Commission stated that availability “refers to a consumer’s ability to purchase a capability that has been 
deployed.”
136
  Does this description form the basis of an adequate definition of availability?  More 
generally, we seek comment on what it means for broadband to be “availab[le].”   
43. In the past, our section 706 inquiries have used subscribership data collected through Form 
477 as an indicator of availability.
137
  The most current published Form 477 data indicate that, as of June 
 
(continued….) 
133
 See infra paras. 56-61; see also Recovery Act § 6001(b)(3)(B) (referring to the “aged” as “vulnerable 
populations”); SUSANNAH FOX & SYDNEY JONES, PEW RESEARCH CENTER PUBLICATIONS, PEW INTERNET AND 
AMERICAN LIFE PROJECT, GENERATIONS ONLINE IN 2009 (2009), http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1093/generations-
online (reporting broadband-in-the-home and Internet use patterns by age cohort); JOHN B. HORRIGAN, PEW 
RESEARCH CENTER PUBLICATIONS, PEW INTERNET AND AMERICAN LIFE PROJECT, HOME BROADBAND ADOPTION 
2009 (2009), http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1254/home-broadband-adoption-2009.aspx (2009 PEW BROADBAND 
ADOPTION STUDY) (reporting that broadband usage among adults ages 65 or older grew from 19% in May 2008 to 
30% in April 2009). 
134
 See, e.g., 2009 PEW BROADBAND ADOPTION STUDY; see also IDA Singapore, Infocomm Usage – Households & 
Individuals, http://www.ida.gov.sg/Publications/20070822125451.aspx (last visited July 29, 2009) (statistical charts 
on, among other things, individual usage of select Internet services); CENSUS AND STATISTICS DEPARTMENT, 
GOVERNMENT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION, THEMATIC HOUSEHOLD SURVEY REPORT NO. 
37: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY USAGE AND PENETRATION (2008), 
http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/products_and_services/products/publications/statistical_report/social_data/index_cd_B1
130237_dt_latest.jsp (includes data on PC and Internet penetration, usage of Internet service, and usage of electronic 
business services); CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, DECIMA STUDY ON 
ACCESS TO NEWS SOURCES (2007), http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/publications/reports/decima2007.htm (describing the 
results of a commissioned study on media usage).   
135
 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b) (emphasis added). 
136
 Section 706 First Report, 14 FCC Rcd at 2410, para. 30. 
137
 See supra Part II; Section 706 Fifth NOI, 22 FCC Rcd at 7821, para. 14 (relying on the “association between 
subscription and deployment,” the Commission reasoned that “such data collection provides a means to assess the 
pace at which advanced telecommunications capabilities are being made available in different parts of the country 
and across different demographic groups”); Section 706 First Report, 14 FCC Rcd at 2402, para. 7 (relying on 
 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-65 
 
 
22 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
2008, the number of high speed lines nationwide reached 132.8 million and that 95 percent of ZIP codes 
had four or more providers with high speed lines in service.
138
  As described above, the Commission’s 
revised Form 477 data collection requires providers to submit more detailed data on subscribership.
139
  In 
conducting this inquiry, the Commission will, at a minimum, evaluate the new subscribership data 
available from our revised Form 477 data collection.  We expect those data will enable us to identify the 
presence of a provider, or multiple providers, at the more granular Census Tract level (and, therefore, also 
at the county level
140
) as well as enabling other types of analysis such as market penetration analysis.  
Also, incumbent local exchange carriers and cable TV systems will continue to report, on Form 477, the 
percentage of residential premises in their service areas where they offer DSL or cable modem high-speed 
Internet access service, respectively.
141
  We note that the mobile wireless broadband network coverage 
maps and the underlying data on which they are based, described above, allow the Commission to 
determine the availability of mobile broadband services at the Census Block level.  We seek comment on 
the possible ways of analyzing the Form 477 data and the mobile wireless broadband maps and data (e.g., 
the American Roamer mobile services data).  We also seek comment on ways to analyze other sources of 
data available to the Commission to the extent they reflect broadband availability. 
44. We also seek comment on the extent to which the developing broadband mapping efforts can 
and should influence this inquiry (or future inquiries) concerning broadband availability.  In the NTIA 
State Mapping NOFA, NTIA states that, for its state mapping grant purposes, it will consider broadband 
service “‘available’ to an end user at an address if a broadband service provider does, or could, within a 
typical service interval (7 to 10 business days) without an extraordinary commitment of resources, 
provision two-way data transmission to and from the Internet with advertised speeds of at least 768 
kilobits per second (kbps) downstream and at least 200 kbps upstream to the end user at the address.”
142
  
We seek comment on how NTIA’s definition of “available” should inform our section 706 inquiry into 
broadband availability.  More generally, we seek comment on the extent to which infrastructure data 
collected for broadband mapping efforts can serve as a measure of broadband availability for section 706 
purposes.  Should “availability” for section 706 purposes be derived (in whole or in part) based on the 
data underlying broadband maps that would identify where broadband infrastructure is deployed across 
the country?
143
  What broadband mapping infrastructure data for particular states has been compiled that 
the Commission could rely on to inform the present inquiry?  We ask parties to identify other data the 
Commission has or that we could obtain from other sources to inform our Inquiry. 
45. Section 706 specifically directs the Commission to conduct an inquiry “concerning the 
availability of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans.”
144
  Subscribership data, 
 
subscribership data as a proxy for deployment and availability, and noting that such data “may not be a precise 
estimate of actual deployment and availability”). 
138
 July 2009 High Speed Report at Tables 1, 15. 
139
 See supra Part III.B.1.a.   
140
 Census Tracts never cross county boundaries.  See supra note 70.  Therefore, county level data are available 
wherever comprehensive Census Tract data are available.   
141
 In June 2008, DSL service was estimated to be offered to 83% of residential premises in the local telephone 
company service areas on average, and to 96% of the residential premises passed by cable TV plant on average.  
July 2009 High Speed Report at Table 14. 
142
 NTIA State Mapping NOFA 74 Fed. Reg. at 32548; see id., Technical App. at 32557.  
143
 The Recovery Act gave the Commission access, for use in developing a national broadband plan, to all data 
provided to other federal agencies under the BDIA.  See supra note 46; Recovery Act § 6001(k)(3). 
144
 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b) (emphasis added).   
 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-65 
 
 
23 
                                                
although an indicator of broadband availability, is a measure of the adoption of broadband services.  We 
seek comment on whether, and to what extent, continued reliance on subscribership data to determine 
availability is appropriate.  For example, would continued reliance on subscribership data allow greater 
continuity with our prior section 706 reports, provide a useful counterpart to infrastructure data, or 
highlight gaps between availability and demand that should be investigated?  Would continued reliance 
on subscribership data in our section 706 reports serve other national goals, such as seeking to expand 
broadband usage?
145
  Once the Commission obtains detailed information on where broadband 
infrastructure is deployed, such as from mapping data, should the Commission rely solely on such 
infrastructure data or should it continue to rely, at least in part, on Form 477 subscribership data in its 
section 706 inquiries?   
46. We also seek comment on whether the Commission’s annual section 706 inquiry should be 
expanded.  For example, the nation’s broadband policy goals now seek to encourage increased utilization 
of broadband in addition to the ubiquitous deployment of broadband facilities.
146
  Would it be useful and 
appropriate for the Commission to assess the level of demand for broadband services in its section 706 
inquiry?  If so, what should the scope of any such inquiry be and upon what data should the Commission 
rely?  Even if such assessment would be appropriate and useful, would it make more sense for the 
Commission to defer such inquiry until benchmarks for the National Broadband Plan have been 
established?
147
  
47. We seek comment on whether and how the existence of community anchor institutions and 
publicly available Internet access points (e.g., Wi-Fi hotspots, public libraries, and Internet cafes), should 
affect our consideration of availability.  For instance, we seek comment on what entities the Commission 
should consider to be community anchor institutions.  NTIA has defined “community anchor institutions” 
as “[s]chools, libraries, medical and healthcare providers, public safety entities, community colleges and 
other institutions of higher education, and other community support organizations and entities.”
148
  Is this 
definition of community anchor institutions appropriate for the Commission to use for purposes of the 
section 706 report?  We seek comment on the extent and role of community anchor institutions and 
publicly available Internet access points across the nation, and the extent to which they are available in 
urban, rural, and suburban areas, as well as in Tribal areas.
149
  Further, we seek comment on how the 
existence of these institutions and access points affects consumer adoption and usage of broadband 
services.   
 
145
 See infra note 147. 
146
 See Recovery Act § 6001(k)(2)(B), (D) (declaring that the National Broadband Plan shall include “a detailed 
strategy for achieving affordability of such service and maximum utilization of broadband infrastructure and service 
by the public” and “a plan for use of broadband infrastructure and services in advancing consumer welfare, civic 
participation, public safety” and a number of other national purposes); see also Recovery Act § 6001(b)(5) 
(declaring that one of the purposes of the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program is to “stimulate the demand 
for broadband”). 
147
 The Recovery Act directs the Commission to “establish benchmarks for meeting th[e] goal” that all people of the 
United States have access to broadband capability.  Recovery Act § 6001(k)(2). 
148
 NTIA State Mapping NOFA, 74 Fed. Reg. at 32548, Technical App. at 32563; see also NTIA/RUS BTOP/BIP 
NOFA, 74 Fed. Reg. at 33108 (“Community anchor institutions means schools, libraries, medical and healthcare 
providers, public safety entities, community colleges and other institutions of higher education, and other 
community support organizations and agencies that provide outreach, access, equipment and support services to 
facilitate greater use of broadband service by vulnerable populations, including low-income, unemployed, and the 
aged.”).   
149
 See, e.g., National Broadband Plan NOI, 24 FCC Rcd at 4349, para. 23. 
 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-65 
 
 
24 
                                                
48. We welcome additional data from other sources that will enable us to make informed 
judgments about broadband availability.  We request objective, empirical data from companies, think 
tanks, governments, analysts, consumer groups, and others.  In addition to data related to the specific 
locations where broadband may be accessed, we seek comment on other issues related to availability.  For 
example, how, if at all, should the price of broadband relate to the availability of these services for all 
Americans?  What sources of data are available on the price and quality of broadband and how should the 
Commission evaluate such data to determine whether these services are affordable and available to all 
Americans?
150
  We also seek comment on what other factors consumers consider in their decision to 
subscribe to broadband.  What is the significance of equipment or software costs consumers must incur to 
subscribe to broadband?  Do certain applications drive the adoption of broadband and, if so, which ones?  
Do concerns about computer security (e.g., identity theft, computer viruses/worms) affect consumers’ 
decisions to adopt and use broadband?
151
  What surveys or data are available relating to the actual speed 
of broadband used by customers as compared to the speed advertised or otherwise claimed by providers 
and how should the Commission evaluate such data?
152
  We also seek comment on whether the 
marketplace is working and whether there are any specific, verifiable examples of anticompetitive 
conduct in the broadband market that are occurring today.   
49. Finally, while we invite parties to submit their own data on broadband availability in this 
docket, we recognize that such submissions raise concerns about the confidentiality of proprietary data.  
We seek comment on how the Commission should balance legitimate confidentiality interests in the 
information it collects against the goals of accountability and openness, including enabling the public to 
measure and review progress.
153
   
2. Trends in Developing Technologies 
50. In prior reports, the Commission looked closely at the various existing and newly emerging 
technologies capable of providing broadband.  Most recently, the Section 706 Fifth Report described in 
detail several technologies used to provide advanced services:  (1) cable modem service; (2) DSL 
(especially asymmetric DSL, or ADSL); (3) fiber-based wireline technologies, specifically fiber-to-the-
home (FTTH) and fiber-to-the-curb (FTTC); (4) licensed wireless technologies; (5) unlicensed wireless 
technologies; (6) BPL; and (7) satellite service.
154
  We seek comment on technological developments that 
have occurred since the Section 706 Fifth Report.  What new network or other technologies, such as 
WiMAX and LTE, are currently being deployed?  How widely have such new technologies been 
deployed, and what percentages of customers utilize such services?  To what extent has the development 
of innovative applications or end-user devices influenced broadband adoption generally?  Further, what 
 
150
 See, e.g., 2009 PEW BROADBAND ADOPTION STUDY (reporting that, from 2008 to 2009, the average price 
subscribers to premium broadband service were charged rose from $38.10 to $44.60 per month, and that, for basic 
broadband, the average price rose from $32.80 to $37.10 per month over this same time period). 
151
 See Office of the Press Secretary, White House, Remarks by the President on Securing Our Nation’s Cyber 
Infrastructure (rel. May 29, 2009).  
152
 SEE IDATE CONSULTING & RESEARCH, BROADBAND COVERAGE IN EUROPE, FINAL REPORT:  2008 SURVEY 
(2008), http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/docs/benchmarking/broadband_coverage_2008.pdf 
(presenting results of survey on broadband coverage and take-up across Europe (EU-27 Member States + Norway 
and Iceland)); PATRIK SANDGREN, SWEDISH POST AND TELECOM AGENCY (PTS), REPORT NO. PTS-ER-2009:8, 
BROADBAND SURVEY 2008 – A GEOGRAPHICAL OVERVIEW OF BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE IN SWEDEN (2009), 
http://www.pts.se/upload/Rapporter/Internet/2009/broadband-survey-2008-pts-er-2009-8.pdf (government 
commissioned report analyzing access to broadband in Sweden). 
153
 See National Broadband Plan NOI, 24 FCC Rcd at 4351, para. 32. 
154
 See Section 706 Fifth Report, 23 FCC Rcd at 9619-29, paras. 8-24. 
 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-65 
 
 
25 
 
rved 
                                                
broadband technologies have not yet been deployed, but are expected to be deployed in the near future?  
Finally, we seek comment on whether certain technological developments are likely to be particularly 
beneficial to specific groups of consumers, such as rural or Tribal consumers, or customers with 
disabilities?   
51. We also seek comment on what innovative technologies are not yet deployed, but the 
deployment of which are expected in the near future.  The Commission’s Form 477 data collection 
program captures the marketplace presence of broadband services that utilize new and innovative 
technologies once consumer use of the services occurs.  Our data collection does not, however, directly 
monitor the development of new technologies with likely, or possible, application to advanced services.  
Nor does our data collection program directly monitor the development of innovative applications that 
utilize broadband.  We therefore invite parties to bring to our attention technologies on the horizon that 
might be used by current or potential providers to deliver new technologies or broadband services to 
consumers.  In addition, we are interested in technologies that might be used directly by consumers, e.g., 
within the consumer’s premises, to lower the cost or difficulty of installing or using advanced services.  
We also are interested in technologies that might enable new broadband applications to become of interest 
to consumers. 
C. Is Broadband Deployment Reasonable and Timely? 
52. Section 706 requires the Commission to determine “whether advanced telecommunications 
capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.”
155
  We seek comment 
on how the developments discussed in Part III above should inform our inquiry into the reasonableness 
and timeliness of broadband deployment to all Americans.  Once again, we will incorporate comments 
filed in the National Broadband Plan NOI into our record here, and also invite parties to file comments 
that are relevant to the questions set forth below.
156
   
53. We seek comment generally on whether broadband is being deployed to all Americans in a 
reasonable and timely fashion, and ask commenters to describe the empirical basis for their conclusions.  
Additionally, we seek comment on how to evaluate whether deployment is “reasonable and timely.”  
What level of broadband deployment is “reasonable”?  How should we assess the timeliness of broadband 
deployment?  How granular should our examination of these issues be?  In particular, we ask how the 
evolution in broadband goals since our Section 706 Fifth Report affects our determination of whether 
deployment of broadband is “reasonable and timely.” 
54. As discussed above, pursuant to section 103(a)(3) of the BDIA, the Commission must 
compile “a list of geographical areas that are not served by any provider of advanced telecommunications 
capability,” and “to the extent that data from the Census Bureau [are] available, determine for each 
unserved area:  (1) the population; (2) population density; and (3) average per capita income.”
157
  We 
seek comment on how the Commission should implement this new broadband data collection 
requirement.  In particular, we seek comment on how to define “geographic area” in the context of
deployment of broadband, and its relationship to Census Bureau data.  Should we define the 
“geographical area” in terms of Census Tracts, which the Commission uses for Form 477, or other 
Census-defined terms, or would another geographic area enable the Commission to identify unse
 
155
 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b) (emphasis added). 
156
 See e.g., National Broadband Plan NOI, 24 FCC Rcd at 4346-50, 4361-62, 4364-65, paras. 15-28, 54-57, 61-62 
(requesting comment on how to define broadband, broadband affordability and utilization, and subscribership data 
and mapping); see supra para. 14.   
157
 BDIA § 103(a)(3); 47 U.S.C. § 1302(c); see also National Broadband Plan NOI, 24 FCC Rcd at 4364-65, para. 
61. 
 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-65 
 
 
26 
d 
 
y 
 
ologies 
S 
                                                
areas in a more useful and comprehensive way?
158
  Further, how should the Commission identify an
address relatively small geographic areas that are unserved when neighboring or surrounding areas are
served?  We also seek comment on whether use of the terminology “areas that are not served by an
provider”
159
 in this proceeding is the same as or different from the term “unserved” as defined by NTIA
and RUS in their implementations of the Recovery Act.
160
  In particular, NTIA and RUS adopt the 
smaller Census Blocks as the relevant geographic area, rather than Census Tracts.  We seek comment on 
whether the Commission should similarly rely on Census Block data for our section 706 analysis to the 
extent such data are available.  Further, we seek comment on whether we should consider all techn
in examining whether an area is not served by any provider of broadband.  For example, NTIA and RU
will exclude satellite broadband service when determining whether an area is unserved for purposes of 
their broadband grant programs.
161
  Should we adopt a similar rationale here and exclude satellite 
broadband providers when identifying areas not served by any provider of broadband?
162
  Finally, we 
seek comment on how the list of geographic areas not served by any provider should inform our analysis 
of whether broadband service is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.  We 
ask parties to provide us data and analyses regarding the reasons why these areas are not served. 
55. As required by section 706(a), we seek comment on the deployment of broadband to 
elementary and secondary schools and classrooms,
163
 an area in which the federal universal service fund, 
specifically, the schools and libraries support mechanism (also known as the E-rate program), provides 
substantial support.
164
  Specifically, we seek comment regarding broadband availability to students that 
attend elementary and secondary schools.  Are there particular groups of students that lack sufficient 
access to broadband?  As the Commission noted in the Section 706 Fifth NOI, a 2006 study released by 
the National Center for Education Statistics found that nearly 100 percent of public schools in the United 
States had Internet access, and 97 percent of these schools used broadband connections to access the 
Internet.
165
  In 1997, only 27 percent of public school instructional classrooms had Internet access; that 
 
158
 See http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cen_tract.html (describing Census Tracts and block numbering areas) (last 
visited July 29, 2009); http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ezinter.html (the Census Bureau’s resource site for selected 
federal programs) (last visited July 29, 2009).  
159
 BDIA § 103(a)(3); 47 U.S.C. § 1302(c).  
160
 See NTIA State Mapping NOFA, 74 Fed. Reg. at 32549 (defining “Unserved Area” as “[a]n area composed of 
one or more contiguous census blocks where at least 90 percent of households in the service area lack access to 
facilities-based terrestrial broadband service, either fixed or mobile, at the minimum broadband transmission speed 
(set forth in the definition of broadband [elsewhere in the NOFA]).  A household has access to broadband service if 
the household can readily subscribe to that service upon request.”); NTIA/RUS BTOP/BIP NOFA, 74 Fed. Reg. at 
33109 (same definition). 
161
 See NTIA/RUS BTOP/BIP NOFA, 74 Fed. Reg. at 33130 (stating that “an area that has only high-latency 
satellite service will . . . qualify as ‘unserved’”); id. (“RUS and NTIA do not include existing satellite service in 
defining whether a given area is unserved, even though such service may meet the threshold speed level to qualify as 
broadband service under the definition adopted in this NOFA.  Because the general reach of satellite service can 
extend to the entire country, it is excluded as a factor in the unserved definition to avoid a finding that no area in the 
United States would be considered unserved.  Such a finding would render the term meaningless.”). 
162
 See supra para. 38 (discussing latency concerns of satellite services). 
163
 See 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b). 
164
 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.500-54.523. 
165
 See Section 706 Fifth NOI, 22 FCC Rcd at 7825, para. 28; JOHN WELLS & LAURIE LEWIS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 
EDUCATION, PUB. NO. NCES 2007-020, INTERNET ACCESS IN U.S. PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND CLASSROOMS:  1994-2005, 
4-5 (2006), http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007020.pdf (NCES Study). 
 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-65 
 
 
27 
                                                
figure increased to 94 percent in 2005.
166
  Do these figures support a conclusion that broadband is being 
deployed to elementary and secondary schools and classrooms on a reasonable and timely basis, including 
in Indian Country?  Are there any other sources of information that would provide insight into whether 
the deployment of broadband service to elementary and secondary schools and classrooms is occurring on 
a reasonable and timely basis?  The NCES Study results indicate that schools in rural areas have lower 
broadband adoption rates than their counterparts in cities, suburbs and towns.
167
  Also according to the 
NCES Study, smaller schools appear less likely than larger schools to have broadband connections.
168
  
We seek comment on whether there are other particular barriers that impede or hinder access to 
broadband by schools.  Are there additional ways in which the Commission can assist schools located in 
geographically isolated areas to improve access to broadband services?   
56. We request comment on the meaning of the term “all Americans” as it relates to the 
reasonable and timely deployment of broadband capabilities.  In the Section 706 Fifth NOI, the 
Commission sought comment regarding businesses, residential consumers, rural communities, elementary 
and secondary students, minority consumers, persons with disabilities, and individuals living on Tribal 
land and in the U.S. territories.
169
  As a threshold question, we seek comment regarding whether these 
categories remain adequate for evaluating broadband deployment to “all Americans.”  Should we 
separately examine these categories in this Inquiry?  Should we further disaggregate these consumer 
groups by geographic areas?  Do these categories sufficiently encompass state and local public safety 
agencies, or should we create a separate category to ensure that public safety users are adequately 
represented in section 706 reports?
170
  Are there other types of consumers, or other geographic areas, that 
are likely to experience broadband deployment at a different pace such that we should also monitor the 
rate of deployment to those customers and areas?  For example, should we track the rate of deployment 
by average income in an area?  Should we track deployment to community anchor institutions and 
publicly available Internet access points that facilitate greater broadband use, for example, by low-income 
or unemployed Americans?
171
  How should our inquiry address broadband deployment to consumers who 
fall within more than one of these categories?
172
  We welcome further comment regarding types of 
consumers or geographical areas relevant to this inquiry, as well as any further comment regarding 
deployment of broadband to Americans generally. 
57. We specifically seek comment on the status of deployment of broadband to consumers living 
in rural areas.  As discussed in the Rural Broadband Report, although the available data are limited, 
recent studies suggest that urban consumers may have greater access to broadband than their rural 
 
166
 NCES Study at 14, 16. 
167
 Id. at 18. 
168
 Id. 
169
 See Section 706 Fifth NOI, 22 FCC Rcd at 7823-26, paras. 24-30; Section 706 Fourth Report, 19 FCC Rcd at 
20569-76. 
170
 The National Broadband Plan NOI included a variety of questions addressing access to and use of broadband for 
public safety and homeland security purposes.  See National Broadband Plan NOI, 24 FCC Rcd at 4367-70, paras. 
72-79.  We will incorporate all comments, including those providing public-safety-related responses, to the National 
Broadband Plan NOI into our record here.  See supra para. 14. 
171
 See supra para. 47; NTIA/RUS BTOP/BIP NOFA, 74 Fed. Reg. at 33108. 
172
 For example, the RURAL BROADBAND REPORT found that “people with disabilities outside metropolitan areas 
have a very low rate of Internet use” but that the Commission “lack[s] properly disaggregated information” about 
this group.”  See RURAL BROADBAND REPORT at para. 29 (finding particularly low rates of broadband deployment 
among people with disabilities outside metropolitan areas). 
 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-65 
 
 
28 
                                                
counterparts.
173
  We seek comment on whether this is still the case today.  Do consumers in rural areas 
enjoy choices among technologies and tiers of advanced services comparable to those available to 
consumers in urban areas?     
58. We further seek comment on the deployment of broadband to individuals living on Tribal 
lands and in the U.S. territories.
174
  The Commission has recognized the dearth of information regarding 
broadband deployment on Tribal lands.
175
  Are data available that capture deployment of advanced 
services in these areas?  What types of unique challenges are associated with the deployment of advanced 
services in Tribal areas or U.S. territories?  Are these challenges similar to or distinguishable from those 
encountered by consumers living in rural areas of the nation?  In areas where services have been 
deployed, have they been deployed to all consumers, or just a limited number of consumers?  What types 
of technologies are being used to provide advanced services on Tribal lands and in U.S. territories?  Are 
there certain types of technological developments that may be especially promising for future deployment 
in Tribal areas or the U.S. territories?  Should we consider U.S. territories and Tribal lands separately 
from other geographic areas? 
59. We also seek focused comment on the deployment of broadband to low-income individuals.  
In prior section 706 inquiries, we have examined the gap in subscribership to advanced services between 
the highest-income ZIP codes and the lowest-income ZIP codes based on our Form 477 data.
176
  In light 
of the revised data collection efforts discussed above, how can we best determine whether broadband is 
being made available to low-income individuals in a reasonable and timely fashion?  Should the 
Commission analyze and report on broadband deployment to people with low incomes in a way that 
differentiates among rural, suburban, and urban areas, and, if so, what tools are available to facilitate this?  
The Rural Broadband Report called attention to the importance of broadband deployment in “rural areas 
where poverty is historical and structural.”
177
  To what extent should the Commission attempt to identify 
and track deployment among different income levels in different geographic areas?     
 
173
 Id. at paras. 26-27 (citing 2008 Pew Broadband Adoption Study and NTIA statistics comparing residents with 
broadband in the home in urban and rural areas). 
174
 We recognize that Indian Country is politically distinct and, as a result, historical and legal circumstances pose 
unique barriers to expanded broadband deployment.  “Indian Country” means:  (a) all land within the limits of any 
Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any 
patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation; (b) all dependent Indian communities within 
the borders of the United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether 
within or without the limits of a state; and (c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been 
extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same.  18 U.S.C. § 1151.  For the purpose of this 
document, Indian Country also includes Alaska Native Villages, Native Hawaiian Homeland, and Trust lands.  
Although section 1151 is a criminal statute, its definition of Indian Country applies in the civil context as well.  In 
this Inquiry, we use “Indian Country,” “Tribal areas,” and “Tribal lands” interchangeably.  We also clarify that for 
purposes of this Inquiry, the term “rural areas” may include Indian Country, although not all of Indian Country 
would otherwise necessarily be considered rural.  To the extent that sections of Indian Country are rural in nature, 
they are likely to face the same—and some additional—difficulties in achieving increased broadband deployment as 
faced by “rural areas.”  See RURAL BROADBAND REPORT at para. 31 n.54. 
175
 See, e.g., Section 706 Fifth Report, 23 FCC Rcd at 9634, para. 38 (finding subscribership to Internet access 
services at any speed on Tribal lands to be largely unknown because no federal survey had been designed to track 
this information); RURAL BROADBAND REPORT at para. 30 (citing lack of data describing broadband availability or 
subscribership on Tribal lands).  
176
 See Section 706 Fifth NOI, 22 FCC Rcd at 7824, para. 26. 
177
 See RURAL BROADBAND REPORT at paras. 24, 31 (noting significance of broadband deployment to people living 
in historically impoverished rural areas).  
 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-65 
 
 
29 
                                                
60. In addition, we seek specific comment on whether broadband is being deployed in a 
reasonable and timely fashion to minority consumers.
178
  To the extent the Commission relies on Census 
Tract data or other geographically-specific data, how can we best determine whether broadband is being 
deployed to minority consumers in a reasonable and timely fashion?  Should we further disaggregate this 
group of consumers, and if so, what degree of specificity would be informative and appropriate?
179
  What 
are the best sources of data concerning deployment to different minority groups?   
61. We also seek specific comment on the extent to which persons with disabilities have access to 
broadband.  What types of barriers do persons with disabilities encounter with respect to accessing 
broadband?  Have there been recent developments in adaptive technologies that improve access to 
broadband for persons with disabilities?  Is it appropriate and practicable to differentiate among people 
with disabilities by whether they live in urban, suburban, or rural areas, or by whether they live in Tribal 
areas?
180
  To what extent do income, employment, or other factors affect the ability of persons with 
disabilities to access broadband?    
62. In addition, as discussed above, and pursuant to BDIA section 103(b), the Commission must 
perform an international comparison of broadband service capability, including 75 communities 
(including capital cities) in 25 geographically diverse countries comparable to “various” U.S. 
communities.
181
  On March 31, 2009, the Commission sought comment on this requirement.
182
  We will 
incorporate the comments submitted in response to that notice into this proceeding.  We seek comment on 
how we should use the results of the Commission’s forthcoming international comparison in assessing 
whether broadband is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.   
63. Further, other international organizations have published international comparisons of 
broadband availability or deployment.  We seek comment on whether and, if so, how we should use such 
international evaluations of broadband availability or deployment in determining whether broadband is 
being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.  Moreover, regardless of whether we 
rely on these evaluations, we seek comment on the regulatory strategies that other countries have used to 
spur broadband availability, deployment, subscribership, or adoption and whether these strategies, in fact, 
have proven successful.   
D. What Actions Can Accelerate Broadband Deployment? 
64. Pursuant to section 706, “the Commission and each State commission . . . shall encourage the 
deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans 
. . . by utilizing . . . price cap regulation, regulatory forbearance, measures that promote competition in the 
local telecommunications market, or other regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure 
 
178
 See National Broadband Plan NOI, 24 FCC Rcd at 4375, para. 101. 
179
 We note Connected Nation’s assertion that, in the suburbs, broadband deployment to “minorities” surpasses 
broadband deployment to “nonminorities.”  See CONNECTED NATION, THE CALL TO COLLECT MINORITY 
AMERICANS:  A CONNECTED NATION POLICY BRIEF (2009), 
http://www.connectednation.org/research/Minority_Americans_Policy_Brief.php (broadband deployment to 
“suburban minorities” (59%) exceeds broadband deployment to “suburban nonminorities” (55%) and significantly 
exceeds broadband deployment to “all adults” (50%)). 
180
 RURAL BROADBAND REPORT at para. 29 (finding particularly low rates of broadband deployment among people 
with disabilities outside metropolitan areas). 
181
 See supra para. 17; see also BDIA § 103(b); 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b). 
182
 See BDIA Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 3908. 
 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-65 
 
 
30 
                                                
investment.”
183
  To the extent commenters advocate that we should undertake additional actions to 
encourage the deployment of broadband, they should set forth those proposals with specificity.   
65. If the Commission finds that broadband is not being deployed in a reasonable and timely 
manner, the Commission must “take immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability by 
removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications 
market.”
184
  Are there specific areas in the United States, such as rural areas, Tribal lands, or groups of 
Americans for whom the pace of deployment justifies action under section 706 to remove barriers to 
infrastructure investment or to promote competition?  If so, what are the specific barriers to entry that are 
inhibiting broadband infrastructure investment?  What authority does the Commission have to remove 
any such barriers—particularly barriers not resulting from Commission regulation—and what actions 
would be warranted?  In addition, what specific steps could the Commission take to promote broadband 
competition in such areas or among such groups of Americans?  Are there any other actions the 
Commission should take to promote the deployment of broadband, and what monetary and other costs 
and benefits would result from any such actions?   
66. In assessing what actions the Commission should take to encourage the deployment of 
broadband, we ask parties to consider the recent Rural Broadband Report, submitted to Congress by the 
Acting Chairman of the Commission, in coordination with the Secretary of the USDA.  The Rural 
Broadband Report includes a number of recommendations to facilitate broadband to rural areas, 
including, for example, enhancing coordination among and between federal, Tribal, state governments, 
and community organizations overall and coordinating specific broadband initiatives, such as data 
collection and mapping efforts.
185
  Are any of the recommendations in the Rural Broadband Report 
relevant to our 706 inquiry here?  Would the recommendations of the Rural Broadband Report be an 
appropriate response if the Commission is required to “take immediate action to accelerate” such 
capability is not being deployed in a reasonable and timely manner?   
E. What Actions Should the Commission Take to Improve Its Regular Broadband 
Data Collection Efforts? 
67. We seek comment on what actions the Commission should take to improve its regular 
broadband data collections.  Last year, the Commission issued a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
on possible changes to its Form 477 broadband data gathering program, asking questions about broadband 
mapping, gathering information on actual speeds experienced by consumers, pricing information, 
confidentiality, and surveys.
186
  Much has happened since then.  As described above, the BDIA addresses 
mapping, consumer surveys, and other issues.
187
  And NTIA has recently issued a NOFA for its mapping 
grant program.
188
  We seek comment in light of these developments on what actions the Commission 
should take to ensure that, in the future, we will have rich information about broadband to inform our 
policymaking activities, to support the activities of other agencies and other levels of government, and to 
provide to consumers, researchers, and industry about the state of broadband in our nation. 
 
183
 See 47 U.S.C. § 1302(a). 
184
 See 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b).  
185
 RURAL BROADBAND REPORT at para. 13.  
186
 2008 Broadband Data Gathering Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 9708-12, paras. 34-40.  
187
 See supra Parts III.A.2 & III.B.3.a.   
188
 NTIA State Mapping NOFA.   
 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-65 
 
 
31 
                                                
V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 
A. Paperwork Reduction Act 
68. This document does not contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13.  In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or 
modified “information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” 
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 47 U.S.C. 
§ 3506(c)(4). 
B. Ex Parte Presentations 
69. The inquiry this Notice initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in 
accordance with the Commission’s ex parte rules.
189 
 Persons making oral ex parte presentations are 
reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance of the 
presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed.  More than a one or two sentence 
description of the views and arguments presented generally is required.
190
  Other requirements pertaining 
to oral and written presentations are set forth in section 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s rules.
191
 
C. Comment Filing Procedures 
70. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules,
192
 interested parties may file 
comments and reply comments regarding the Notice on or before the dates indicated on the first page of 
this document.  All filings related to this Notice of Inquiry should refer to GN Docket No. 09-137 and 
GN Docket No. 09-51.  Comments may be filed using:  (1) the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing 
System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government’s eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies.  See 
Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). 
• Electronic Filers:  Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the 
ECFS:  http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal:  
http://www.regulations.gov.  Filers should follow the instructions provided on the website for 
submitting comments.   
• ECFS filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for GN Docket No. 09-137 
and GN Docket No. 09-51.  In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their 
full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket number.  Parties 
may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail.  To get filing instructions, filers 
should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following words in the body of the 
message, “get form.”  A sample form and directions will be sent in response.  
• Paper Filers:  Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each 
filing.  Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, 
or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience 
delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail).  All filings must be addressed to the 
Commission’s Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal 
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20554.  
• The Commission’s contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper 
filings for the Commission’s Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Suite 110, 
Washington, DC 20002.  The filing hours at this location are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.  All hand 
 
189
 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.200 et seq. 
190
 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b)(2). 
191
 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b). 
192
 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419. 
 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-65 
 
 
32 
deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners.  Any envelopes must be 
disposed of before entering the building.  
• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) 
must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.  
• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12
th
 
Street, S.W., Washington DC 20554.  
• Parties should send a copy of their filings to the Competition Policy Division, Wireline 
Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, Room 5-C140, 445 12th Street, 
S.W., Washington, DC 20554, or by e-mail to cpdcopies@fcc.gov.  Parties shall also serve 
one copy with the Commission’s copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), 
Portals II, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 488-5300, 
or via e-mail to fcc@bcpiweb.com.  
• Documents in GN Docket Nos. 09-137 and 09-51 will be available for public inspection and 
copying during business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th 
Street S.W., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554.  The documents may also be 
purchased from BCPI, telephone (202) 488-5300, facsimile (202) 488-5563, TTY (202) 488-
5562, e-mail fcc@bcpiweb.com. 
 
D. Accessible Formats 
71. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, 
electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice) or 202-418-0432 (TTY).  Contact the FCC to request reasonable 
accommodations for filing comments (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, 
etc.) by e-mail:  FCC504@fcc.gov; phone:  202-418-0530 or TTY:  202-418-0432. 
VI. ORDERING CLAUSE 
72. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 706 of the Telecommunications Act 
of 1996, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 1302, this Notice of Inquiry IS ADOPTED. 
   
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
 
 
 
 
     Marlene H. Dortch 
     Secretary 
 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-65 
   
APPENDIX 
 
Commission’s Report on High-Speed Services for Internet Access:  Status as of June 30, 2008 
 
 
 
  
High-Speed Services for Internet Access: 
Status as of June 30, 2008 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Industry Analysis and Technology Division 
Wireline Competition Bureau 
July 2009 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This report is available for reference in the FCC’s Reference Information Center, Courtyard Level, 445 12th 
Street, SW, Washington, DC.  Copies may be purchased by contacting Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 
12th Street, SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 378-3160, or via their website at 
www.bcpiweb.com.  The report can also be downloaded from the Wireline Competition Bureau Statistical 
Reports Internet site at www.fcc.gov/wcb/stats. 
 
 1
High-Speed Services for Internet Access:  Status as of June 30, 2008 
 
Congress directed the Commission and the states, in section 706 of the Telecommunications Act 
of 1996, to encourage deployment of advanced telecommunications capability in the United 
States on a reasonable and timely basis.
1
  To assist in its evaluation of such deployment, in 2000 
the Commission instituted a formal data collection program (FCC Form 477) to gather 
standardized information about subscribership to high-speed services, including advanced 
services, from wireline telephone companies, cable system operators, terrestrial wireless service 
providers, satellite service providers, and any other facilities-based providers of advanced 
telecommunications capability.
2
  Filers were required to report the number of subscribers they 
had in each state, broken down by speed tier and technology, and to identify all Zip Codes in 
which they had at least one high-speed connection in service.
3
 
 
The Commission and others have recognized these requirements as insufficiently granular or 
precise to inform necessary policymaking.  In June 2008, the Commission released a Report and 
Order (FCC 08-89) and Order on Reconsideration (FCC 08-148), which together implemented 
significant improvements to the way in which the Commission collects data on these services.
4
  
As part of these improvements, which were effective for the March 2009 collection of data as of 
year-end 2008, providers of wired broadband, fixed-wireless broadband, and satellite-based 
broadband connections report subscriber counts at the Census Tract level rather than the state 
level, and all filers report their connections in accordance with an increased number of upload 
and download transmission speed tiers.  In conjunction with measures underway pursuant to the 
Broadband Data Improvement Act and the Recovery Act,
5
 the new Form 477 data will provide 
                                                      
1
  See §706, Pub.L. 104-104, Title VII, Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 153, reproduced in the notes under 47 U.S.C. § 157.  
In this report, we use the term “high-speed” to describe services that provide the subscriber with transmissions at a 
speed in excess of 200 kilobits per second (kbps) in at least one direction.  “Advanced services,” which provide the 
subscriber with transmission speeds in excess of 200 kbps in each direction, are a subset of high-speed services.  
2
  Local Competition and Broadband Reporting, CC Docket No. 99-301, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 7717 
(2000); Local Telephone Competition and Broadband Reporting, WC Docket No. 04-141, Report and Order, 19 
FCC Rcd 22340 (2004).  Qualifying entities file FCC Form 477 each year on March 1 (reporting data for the 
preceding December 31) and September 1 (reporting data for June 30 of the same year).  The first data collected 
were as of December 31, 1999.   
3
  Because of the inherent mobility of their service, mobile wireless providers reported subscribers by state and the 
Zip Codes that best represented their broadband-network coverage area.  In addition to reporting subscribers by 
state and Zip Codes with connections in service, incumbent telephone companies and cable system operators 
reported their DSL or cable modem service availability to the housing units in their service area in the state.    
4
  Development of Nationwide Broadband Data to Evaluate Reasonable and Timely Deployment of Advanced 
Services to All Americans, Improvement of Wireless Broadband Subscribership Data, and Development of Data on 
Interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) Subscribership, WC Docket No. 07-38, Report and Order, 23 
FCC Rcd 9691 (2008); Order on Reconsideration, 23 FCC Rcd 9800 (2008).  Effective with the filing of data as of 
December 31, 2008, Form 477 is a Web-based electronic filing system.  Information about this system is available 
at http://www.fcc.gov/form477/.      
5
  See 47 U.S.C. § 1301 et seq. (Broadband Data Improvement Act); American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 
2008, Pub.L. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115 (2009) (Recovery Act). 
 2
the Commission and the public with a more valuable resource for evaluating the state of 
broadband in the country.  
 
Statistics reported here reflect data as of June 30, 2008, and are the last to be based on data 
collected under the previous Form 477 requirements.
6
  Readers can draw the following broad 
conclusions from the data summarized in this report:  
 
• High-speed lines connecting homes and businesses to the Internet at speeds exceeding 200 
kbps in at least one direction increased by 10% during the first half of 2008, from 121.1 
million lines to 132.8 million lines in service, following a 20% increase, from 101.0 million 
to 121.2 million lines, during the second half of 2007.  For the full twelve-month period 
ending June 30, 2008, high-speed lines increased by 32% (or 31.8 million lines).  See Table 1 
and Chart 1.   
 
• ADSL lines increased by 0.5 million lines during the first half of 2008, fiber connections 
increased by 0.5 million lines, and cable modem service increased by 1.7 million lines.  For 
the full twelve-month period ending June 30, 2008, ADSL increased by 2.2 million lines, 
fiber connections increased by 1.1 million lines, and cable modem service increased by 3.8 
million lines.  See Table 1.   
 
                                                      
6
  The terms “high-speed connections” and “broadband connections” are synonyms in this report.  The reported 
connections terminate at end user locations and enable the end user to receive information from and/or send 
information to the Internet at information transfer rates exceeding 200 kbps in at least one direction.  “End users” 
are residential, business, institutional, or government entities who use services for their own purposes and who do 
not resell such services to other entities.  The “facilities-based” provider of a broadband connection is the entity that 
owns the portion of the physical facility that terminates at the end user location, obtains an unbundled network 
element (UNE), special access line, or other leased facility that terminates at the end user location and 
provisions/equips it as broadband, or provisions/equips a broadband wireless channel to the end user location over 
licensed spectrum or over spectrum that the provider uses on an unlicensed basis.  Facilities-based providers report 
information about connections they provide directly to their own end-user customers and also connections that they 
provide to Internet Service Providers for resale to end users. 
Prior to June 2005, providers with fewer than 250 high-speed connections in service in a particular state were not 
required to report data for that state.  Therefore, small providers, many of whom serve rural areas with relatively 
small populations, were underrepresented in the data.  Including these providers resulted in a one-time increase – 
from 552 in December 2004 to 1,270 in June 2005 – in the number of holding companies and unaffiliated entities 
reporting information about high-speed connections.  See Table 7.  High-speed lines reported in voluntary 
submissions of data prior to June 2005 represented less than 0.05% of total reported high-speed lines.  As of June 
30, 2005, filers with fewer than 250 lines in a state (including some entities that previously made voluntary 
submissions) represented about 0.2% of total reported high-speed lines.   
Statistical summaries of the earlier Form 477 data collections appeared in Deployment of Advanced 
Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, CC Docket No. 98-146, 
Second Report, 15 FCC Rcd 20913 (2000) (Second 706 Report), available at www.fcc.gov/broadband/706.html, 
and in previous releases of the High-Speed Services for Internet Access report, available at www.fcc.gov/wcb/stats. 
 3
• Of the 132.8 million total high-speed lines, 28.8% were cable modem, 22.6% were ADSL, 
0.7% were symmetric DSL (SDSL) or traditional wireline, 1.8% were fiber to the end user 
premises, and 46.2% used other technologies.
7
  See Chart 2.   
 
• Lines connecting homes and businesses to the Internet at transmission speeds exceeding 200 
kbps in both directions increased from 80.3 million lines to 88.4 million lines during the first 
half of 2008.  For the full twelve-month period ending June 30, 2008, they increased by 18.8 
million, from 69.6 million lines to 88.4 million lines.  See Table 2 and Chart 3.   
 
• Of the 88.4 million lines which were faster than 200 kbps in both directions, 42.8% were 
cable modem, 29.6% were ADSL, 1.1% were SDSL or traditional wireline, 2.7% were fiber 
to the end user premises, and 23.9% used other technologies.  See Chart 4.   
 
• Of the 132.8 million total high-speed lines, 79.1 million were designed to serve primarily 
residential end users.  Cable modem represented 46.7% of these lines while 34.1% were 
ADSL, 0.1% were SDSL or traditional wireline connections, 2.7% were fiber to the end user 
premises, and 16.4% used other technologies.  See Table 3 and Chart 6.  For state-specific 
data, see Table 13.     
 
• Of the 88.4 million lines that were faster than 200 kbps in both directions, 74.5 million lines 
were designed to serve primarily residential end users.  Of these, cable modem represented 
49.2% while 31.3% were ADSL, 0.2% were SDSL or traditional wireline, 2.9% were fiber to 
the end user premises, and 16.5% used other technologies.  See Table 4 and Chart 8.  
  
• Of the 88.4 million reported high-speed lines that were faster than 200 kbps in both 
directions as of June 30, 2008, 55.5% were at least 2.5 mbps in the faster direction and 
44.5% were slower than 2.5 mbps in the faster direction.  See Table 5.   
 
• Incumbent LECs or their affiliates reported 97.3% of ADSL connections, 91.8% of fiber-to-
the-premises connections, 81.3% of the mobile service subscribers whose wireless device is 
capable of operating on a high-speed mobile wireless network, and 32.4% of traditional 
wireline connections.  When all technologies are considered, incumbent LECs reported 
60.4% of total high-speed connections.  See Table 6.   
 
• High-speed lines were reported in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, 
Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.  See Table 9 and, for 
historical data, Tables 10 - 12.   
 
                                                      
7
  Providers are instructed to report a high-speed connection in the (mutually exclusive) technology category that 
characterizes the last few feet of distribution plant to the subscriber’s premises.  In addition to cable modem, ADSL, 
SDSL, traditional wireline when used for Internet access, and optical carrier (fiber to the end user) connections, 
reporting entities specify satellite, terrestrial fixed wireless (licensed or unlicensed), terrestrial mobile wireless 
(licensed or unlicensed), electric power line, or “all other” technology.  See additional notes following Chart 10.   
 4
• As a nationwide average, we estimate that high-speed DSL connections were available to 
83% of the households to whom incumbent LECs could provide local telephone service, and 
that high-speed cable modem service was available to 96% of the households to whom cable 
system operators could provide cable TV service.  See Table 14.      
 
• Providers other than providers of terrestrial mobile wireless services listed the Zip Codes in 
which they had at least one high-speed connection in service to an end user, while terrestrial 
mobile wireless service providers listed the Zip Codes that best represented their service 
territories.  Combining these data, 100% of 5-digit geographical Zip Codes were represented 
in the lists filed for June 2008.
8
  The most widely reported technologies by this measure were 
high-speed mobile wireless (with at least some presence reported in 99% of Zip Codes), 
satellite (in 93% of Zip Codes), ADSL (in 87% of Zip Codes), and cable modem service (in 
67% of Zip Codes).  ADSL and/or cable modem connections were reported to be present in 
91% of Zip Codes.
9
  See Tables 15 and 16, and the map that follows Table 16.  For state-
specific data, see Table 17.    
 
• High population density and high median household income each have had a positive 
association with reports that high-speed subscribers are present.  See Tables 18 and 19.  
 
As other information from the Commission’s data collection program (FCC Form 477) becomes 
available, it will be included in future reports on the deployment of advanced 
telecommunications capability and in publications such as this one.   
 
We invite users of this information to provide suggestions for improved data collection and 
analysis by: 
 
• Using the attached customer response form, 
• E-mailing comments to James.Eisner@fcc.gov or Suzanne.Mendez@fcc.gov, 
• Calling the Industry Analysis and Technology Division of the Wireline Competition Bureau 
at (202) 418-0940, or 
• Participating in any formal proceedings undertaken by the Commission to solicit comments 
for improvement of FCC Form 477.  
                                                      
8
  Lists of Zip Codes with number of service providers as reported in the FCC Form 477 filings are made available 
at www.fcc.gov/wcb/stats in a format that honors requests for nondisclosure of information the reporting entities 
assert is competitively sensitive.  Form 477 filings of data after June 30, 2008 will not include broadband provider 
Zip Code lists.  The later filings will include broadband information based on census tracts.   
9
  The 91.4% figure includes Zip Codes with either ADSL subscribers reported, cable modem subscribers reported, 
or both.  In 63.0% of Zip Codes, both ADSL and cable modem subscribers have been reported.  In 24.2% of Zip 
Codes, there are ADSL subscribers reported but no cable modem subscribers, and in 4.2% of Zip Codes there are 
cable modem subscribers reported but no ADSL subscribers reported. 
2003 2008
Jun
 ADSL 5,101,493 7,675,114 11,398,199 16,316,309 19,515,483 22,583,548 25,412,509 27,792,800  29,449,166  29,963,968  
 SDSL and Traditional Wireline 1,186,680 1,215,713 1,407,121 898,468 741,904 809,209 889,266 941,685  898,363  939,692  
    SDSL - - - 411,731 368,782 337,412 344,759 319,991  293,421  274,582  
    Traditional Wireline - - - 486,737 373,122 471,797 544,507 621,694  604,942  665,110  
 Cable Modem 9,172,895 13,684,225 18,592,636 24,017,442 26,558,206 29,173,449 31,981,705 34,404,368  36,506,972  38,190,355  
 Fiber 
3
105,991 111,386 130,928 315,651 298,052 547,082 893,995 1,280,994  1,848,565  2,346,328  
 Satellite and Wireless 220,588 309,006 421,690 965,068 3,812,029 11,873,157 23,343,199 36,560,869  52,514,007  61,368,444  
    Satellite - - - 376,837 426,928 495,365 571,980 668,803  791,142  869,450  
    Fixed Wireless - - - 208,695 257,431 361,272 483,470 586,813  706,552  808,375  
    Mobile Wireless - - - 379,536 3,127,670 11,016,520 22,287,749 35,305,253  51,016,313  59,690,619  
 Power Line and Other - - - 4,872 4,571 5,208 4,776 5,420  5,274  5,197  
   Total Lines 15,787,647 22,995,444 31,950,574 42,517,810 50,930,245 64,991,653 82,525,450 100,986,136  121,222,347  132,813,984  
 
  
Some historical data have been revised back through December 2005.  See additional notes following Chart 10.   
JunJun Jun
For data through December 2004, only those providers with at least 250 lines per state were required to file.  
Jun
2002 2005 2006 2007
Dec
Technology
 2
Chart 1
Total High-Speed Lines
Chart 2
High-Speed Lines by Technology as of June 30, 2008
Jun
Table 1
High-Speed Lines 
1
(Over 200 kbps in at least one direction)
Dec
2004
Jun Dec
0
10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
60,000,000
70,000,000
80,000,000
90,000,000
100,000,000
110,000,000
120,000,000
130,000,000
140,000,000
Jun
2000
Jun
2001
Jun
2002
Jun
2003
Jun
2004
Jun
2005
Jun
2006
Jun
2007
Jun
2008
Cable Modem
28.8%
SDSL and Traditional 
Wireline
0.7%
ADSL
22.6%
Fiber
1.8%
All Other
46.2%
2003 2008
Jun Jun Jun Jun Dec Jun Dec Jun Dec Jun
 ADSL 1,852,879 2,536,368 3,768,019  13,176,095  15,921,336  18,310,250  21,143,785 23,656,827  25,243,814  26,132,248  
 SDSL and Traditional Wireline 1,186,680 1,215,713 1,407,121  869,772  737,192  807,951  888,350 940,971  898,295  939,543  
    SDSL - - - 387,451  368,736  336,586  344,739 319,352  293,426  274,582  
    Traditional Wireline - - - 482,321  368,456  471,365  543,611 621,619  604,869  664,961  
 Cable Modem 6,819,395 11,935,866 17,567,468  22,745,012  26,293,596  28,892,961  31,594,111 33,935,733  36,165,251  37,848,833  
 Fiber 
3
104,015 110,829 129,636  314,229  297,048  545,992  892,637 1,278,906  1,844,767  2,344,477  
 Satellite and Wireless 66,073 64,393 93,805  223,274  338,635  2,275,313  4,981,768 9,801,348  16,096,448  21,143,958  
    Satellite - - - 10,966  36,331  27,489  36,026 57,202  73,747  155,312  
    Fixed Wireless - - - 191,229  220,268  333,368  454,834 554,316  675,489  763,121  
    Mobile Wireless - - - 21,079  82,036  1,914,456  4,490,908 9,189,830  15,347,212  20,225,525  
 Power Line and Other - - - 4,174  4,501  5,209  4,776 5,420  5,274  5,197  
   Total Lines 10,029,042 15,863,169 22,966,048  37,332,557  43,592,308 50,837,676 59,505,427 69,619,205  80,253,849  88,414,256  
Total High-Speed Lines
For data through December 2004, only those providers with at least 250 lines per state were required to file.  
Advanced Services Lines
Some historical data have been revised back through December 2005.  See additional notes following Chart 10.    
20062004
Chart 4
Advanced Services Lines by Technology as of June 30, 2008
Table 2
Advanced Services Lines 
1
(Over 200 kbps in both directions)
Chart 3
Technology 
2
2002 2005 2007
0
10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
60,000,000
70,000,000
80,000,000
90,000,000
100,000,000
Jun
2000
Jun
2001
Jun
2002
Jun
2003
Jun
2004
Jun
2005
Jun
2006
Jun
2007
Jun
2008
Cable Modem
42.8%
SDSL and Traditional 
Wireline
1.1%
ADSL
29.6%
Fiber
2.7%
All Other
23.9%
2003 2008
Jun Jun Jun Jun Dec Jun Dec Jun Dec Jun
 ADSL 4,395,033 6,429,938 10,759,495 14,442,823 17,370,508 20,151,612 22,768,119 24,961,878 26,475,392  26,949,947  
 SDSL and Traditional Wireline 223,599 250,372 393,049 159,489 129,444 112,017 117,708 117,522 99,579  112,689  
    SDSL - - - 153,978 122,220 102,605 105,012 105,029 82,284  80,971  
    Traditional Wireline - - - 5,511 7,224 9,412 12,696 12,493 17,295  31,718  
 Cable Modem 9,157,285 13,660,541 18,525,265 23,578,060 25,714,461 28,387,732 31,118,079 33,336,493 35,341,445  36,900,880  
 Fiber 
3
6,120 16,132 22,719 83,293 213,479 444,147 763,987 1,153,058 1,682,639  2,138,584  
 Satellite and Wireless 202,251 288,786 387,563 428,367 532,391 1,840,202 3,571,381 6,598,757 10,379,504  12,982,393  
    Satellite - - - 265,017 320,142 382,047 455,936 530,357 626,466  705,126  
    Fixed Wireless - - - 160,775 203,179 301,435 423,524 523,180 644,012  741,230  
    Mobile Wireless - - - 2,574 9,071 1,156,720 2,691,921 5,545,220 9,109,026  11,536,037  
 Power Line and Other - - - 4,447 4,550 5,093 4,711 5,347 5,159  5,082  
   Total Lines 13,984,287 20,645,769 30,088,091 38,696,480 43,964,834 50,940,803 58,343,985 66,173,055 73,983,718  79,089,575  
Small business lines were included in totals through December 2004.  
Residential High-Speed Lines
Chart 6
For data through December 2004, only those providers with at least 250 lines per state were required to file.  
200720052004
Some historical data have been revised back through December 2005.  See additional notes following Chart 10.  
Residential High-Speed Lines by Technology as of June 30, 2008
Table 3
Residential High-Speed Lines 
1
(Over 200 kbps in at least one direction)
Chart 5
Technology
 2
2002 2006
0
10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
60,000,000
70,000,000
80,000,000
90,000,000
Jun
2000
Jun
2001
Jun
2002
Jun
2003
Jun
2004
Jun
2005
Jun
2006
Jun
2007
Jun
2008
SDSL and Traditional 
Wireline
0.1%
ADSL
34.1%
Fiber
2.7%
Cable Modem
46.7%
All Other
16.4%
2003 2008
 ADSL 1,580,575 2,071,779 3,174,022 11,731,303 14,242,291 16,415,844 18,878,492 21,106,148 22,555,534  23,315,454  
 SDSL and Traditional Wireline 223,599 250,372 393,049 151,979 125,116 111,935 117,652 116,966 99,551  112,667  
    SDSL - - - 149,862 122,220 102,580 105,002 104,517 82,284  80,971  
    Traditional Wireline - - - 2,118 2,895 9,355 12,650 12,449 17,267  31,696  
 Cable Modem 6,809,170 11,920,207 17,505,907 22,324,471 25,533,423 28,159,416 30,770,517 32,916,212 35,035,299  36,600,250  
 Fiber 
3
5,118 15,751 21,866 82,831 212,862 443,248 762,676 1,151,109 1,680,118  2,136,994  
 Satellite and Wireless 47,787 46,407 72,485 150,893 204,703 1,449,441 3,114,137 6,074,862 9,772,245  12,288,019  
    Satellite - - - 2,244 25,117 15,055 23,334 35,319 47,743  62,913  
    Fixed Wireless - - - 146,074 170,515 277,666 398,882 494,341 616,643  700,354  
    Mobile Wireless - - - 2,574 9,071 1,156,720 2,691,921 5,545,202 9,107,859  11,524,752  
 Power Line and Other - - - 3,916 4,481 5,093 4,711 5,347 5,159  5,082  
 
   Total Lines 8,666,249 14,304,515 21,167,329 34,445,394 40,322,876 46,584,977 53,648,185 61,370,644 69,147,906  74,458,466  
Small business lines were included in totals through December 2004.  
Some historical data have been revised back through December 2005.  See additional notes following Chart 10.  
Jun Dec
2006
JunJun Dec
2005
Jun Jun DecJun
Technology 
2
20042002
Residential Advanced Services Lines by Technology as of June 30, 2008
Jun
Table 4
Residential Advanced Services Lines 
1
(Over 200 kbps in both directions)
For data through December 2004, only those providers with at least 250 lines per state were required to file.  
Chart 7
Residential Advanced Services Lines
Chart 8
2007
0
10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
60,000,000
70,000,000
80,000,000
Jun
2000
Jun
2001
Jun
2002
Jun
2003
Jun
2004
Jun
2005
Jun
2006
Jun
2007
Jun
2008
Fiber
2.9%
All 
Other
16.5%
SDSL and Traditional 
Wireline
0.2%
ADSL
31.3%
Cable Modem
49.2%
 ADSL 3,831,720  13,438,371  12,621,752  72,125  0  0  
 SDSL 0  261,179  13,119  *  *  0  
 Traditional Wireline 149  561,427  60,249  8,712  8,095  26,478  
 Cable Modem 341,522  3,880,514  29,302,547  4,559,560  *  *  
 Fiber 1,851  139,442  903,130  1,260,683  15,857  25,365  
 Satellite 714,138  *  *  0  0  0  
 Fixed Wireless 45,254  713,691  48,429  736  *  *  
 Mobile Wireless 39,465,094  *  *  *  0  0  
 Power Line and Other 0  *  *  0  *  0  
   Total Lines 44,399,728  39,371,371  42,958,483  5,902,037  129,569  52,796  
* Data withheld to maintain firm confidentiality.     
See notes following Chart 10.  
 
Greater than 
200 kbps and 
less than 2.5 
mbps in the 
faster 
direction
Greater than 
or equal to 2.5 
mbps and less 
than 10 mbps 
in the faster 
direction
Chart 9
Lines by Information Transfer Rates in the Faster Directions as of June 30, 2008
(Includes only lines exceeding 200 kbps in both directions)
Greater than 
or equal to    
100 mbps in 
the faster 
direction
Greater than 
or equal to   
10 mbps and 
less than 25 
mbps in the 
faster 
direction
Greater than 
or equal to   
25 mbps and 
less than    
100 mbps in 
the faster 
direction
Table 5
High-Speed Lines by Information Transfer Rates 
1
As of June 30, 2008
Exceeding 200 kbps in both directions, and:
Technology 
2
Exceeding    
200 kbps in 
only one 
direction
44.5%
6.9%
48.6%
> 200 kbps, < 2.5 mbps
? 2.5 mbps, < 10 mbps
? 10 mbps
 
Other Non-
ILEC
ILEC
 5
 ADSL 23,507,656  5,633,473  822,839  29,963,968  78.5 % 18.8 % 2.7 %
 SDSL *  *  193,027  274,582  * * 70.3
 Traditional Wireline 192,234  23,187  449,689  665,110  28.9 3.5 67.6
 Cable Modem *  *  38,088,528  38,190,355  * * 99.7
 Fiber 2,058,460  95,799  192,069  2,346,328  87.7 4.1 8.2
 Satellite 0  0  869,450  869,450  0.0 0.0 100.0
 Fixed Wireless *  *  784,732  808,375  * * 97.1
 Mobile Wireless *  *  11,164,860  59,690,619  * * 18.7
 Power Line and Other 0  0  5,197  5,197  0.0 0.0 100.0
   Total Lines 74,287,484  5,956,109  52,570,391  132,813,984  55.9 % 4.5 % 39.6 %
 
* Data withheld to maintain firm confidentiality.
See notes following Chart 10.  
Chart 10
Share of High-Speed Lines by Type of Provider as of June 30, 2008
RBOC
 4
Total
RBOC
 4
Other
Technology 
2
Non-
Table 6
High-Speed Lines by Type of Provider as of June 30, 2008
 1
(Over 200 kbps in at least one direction)
ILEC
ILEC
 5
Lines Percent of Lines
Non-ILEC
39.6%
RBOC
55.9%
Other ILEC
4.5%
 
4
 RBOC lines include lines owned by AT&T, Qwest and Verizon, and their affiliates.
5
 High-speed lines reported by non-ILEC affiliates of RBOCs are reported in the column for RBOC 
lines and are excluded from the column for non-ILEC lines.  Lines reported by non-ILEC affiliates of 
ILECs other than the RBOCs are reported in the column for non-ILEC lines.  
Notes for Tables 1 - 6 and Charts 1 - 10.
Advanced services lines, residential high-speed lines, and residential advanced services lines are 
estimated based on data reported on FCC Form 477.  Therefore, figures may not add to totals due to 
rounding.
1
 In this report, high-speed lines are connections to end-user locations that deliver services at speeds 
exceeding 200 kbps in at least one direction.  Advanced services lines, which are a subset of high-speed 
lines, are connections that deliver services at speeds exceeding 200 kbps in both directions.  In Tables 2 
and 4, we enumerate those reported high-speed lines that also qualify as advanced services lines.  More 
detailed information about connection speeds is presented in Table 5.  Line counts presented in this 
report are not adjusted for the number of persons at a single end-user location who have access to, or 
who use, the Internet-access services that are delivered over the high-speed connection to that location.
2 
The mutually exclusive types of technology are, respectively:  Asymmetric digital subscriber line 
(ADSL) technologies, which provide speeds in one direction greater than speeds in the other direction; 
symmetric digital subscriber line (SDSL) technologies; traditional wireline technologies when used to 
provide equivalent Internet access functionality, including Ethernet service if delivered to the 
subscriber's location over copper (as opposed to optical fiber) plant; cable modem, including the typical 
hybrid fiber-coax (HFC) architecture of upgraded cable TV systems; optical fiber to the subscriber's 
premises (e.g., Fiber-to-the-Home, or FTTH); satellite and fixed and mobile terrestrial wireless systems, 
which use radio spectrum to communicate with a radio transmitter; electric power line; and other.  
3 
Fiber lines included electric power line through December 2004.
 
ADSL Cable Modem Total
 Dec 1999   28        43        65          105    
 Jun 2000   47        36        75          116    
 Dec 2000   68        39        87          136    
 Jun 2001   86        47        98          160    
 Dec 2001   117        59        122          203    
 Jun 2002   142        68        138          237    
 Dec 2002   178        87        169          299    
 Jun 2003   235        98        217          378    
 Dec 2003   274        110        246          432    
 Jun 2004   298        129        281          485    
 Dec 2004   352        147        312          552    
 Jun 2005   758        227        779          1,270    
 Dec 2005   818        242        833          1,345    
Jun 2006   833        254        816          1,327    
 Dec 2006   858        279        882          1,396    
Jun 2007   864        282        874          1,374    
Dec 2007   856        292        907          1,399    
Jun 2008   863        296        902          1,395    
Table 7
Nationwide Number of Providers of High-Speed Lines by Technology
(Over 200 kbps in at least one direction)
All Other 
1
1
 All other includes SDSL, traditional wireline, fiber, satellite, fixed and mobile wireless, and power line. 
Chart 11
Historical Number of Reporting Providers of High-Speed Lines by Technology
For data through December 2004, only those providers with at least 250 lines per state were required to file.  Some 
historical data have been revised.
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
Dec.
1999
June
2000
Dec.
2000
June
2001
Dec.
2001
June
2002
Dec.
2002
June
2003
Dec.
2003
June
2004
Dec.
2004
June
2005
Dec.
2005
June
2006
Dec.
2006
June
2007
Dec.
2007
June
2008
ADSL Cable Modem Total
 
Traditional Cable Fixed Mobile Power Line Total
Wireline Modem Wireless Wireless and Other (Unduplicated)
Alabama    32     9    21   19   11 *    5     5     0   73
Alaska     9     6     5 * * *    6 *     0   18
American Samoa * *     0    0    0    0 *     0     0 *    
Arizona    24     7    17   10   13 *   12     5     0   57
Arkansas    22     8    12   11    6 * *     4     0   49
California    26    16    36   16   16 *   23     4     0   84
Colorado    30    12    21   13   13 *   22     8     0   73
Connecticut     8     8    14    7    8 *    0 *     0   31
Delaware    11     7    19 * * *    0 *     0   32
District of Columbia    12     8    18 *    6 * * *     0   30
Florida    28    17    42   16   22 *   13     5 *   82
Georgia    40    14    29   27   29 *    7     4     0   89
Guam *     0 * *    0    0    0     0     0 *    
Hawaii * *     6 *    5 * * *     0   14
Idaho    24     9    14    7   14 *   16     5     0   53
Illinois    58    20    38   17   15 *   37     5 *  121
Indiana    41    13    29   13   21 *   27 * *   88
Iowa   130    39    26   35   31 *   57     6     0  192
Kansas    38    15    18   26   19 *   25     4     0   86
Kentucky    31    10    17   19   11 *   12     5     0   75
Louisiana    22     9    20   10   10 *    5     5     0   53
Maine    14    10    11    5    8 *    0 *     0   30
Maryland    16    10    18   12    8 * * *     0   44
Massachusetts    16    10    22    6    7 *    4 *     0   43
Michigan    42    13    27   12   15 *   17     5 *   78
Minnesota    69    27    24   13   29 *   14     4     0  101
Mississippi    20     6    19   11    8 *    4     5     0   53
Missouri    44    19    21   18   13 *   26     5 *   92
Montana    18     8    10    4    7 *   11     4     0   38
Nebraska    34    14    11   16    6 *   22     4     0   68
Nevada    17    10    16    4    7 *    7     5     0   41
New Hampshire    15     8    15    6    7 * * *     0   37
New Jersey    20    14    34    8   10 * * *     0   51
New Mexico    23     7    11    7    6 *    8     5     0   44
New York    43    17    32   14   15 *    9     5     0   80
North Carolina    31    16    27   14   12 *    7     5     0   70
North Dakota    23    13    10    7   10 *   12 *     0   40
Northern Mariana Islands *     0 * * *    0 *     0     0 *    
Ohio    43    17    26   19   20 *   19     4 *   86
Oklahoma    39     8    22   10    9 *   17     5     0   77
Oregon    41    10    19   11   15 *   13     4     0   68
Pennsylvania    43    18    37   20   20 *   11     4     0   85
Puerto Rico *     0     7 *    4 *    4 *     0   15
Rhode Island    10     7    13 *    5 *    0 *     0   25
South Carolina    24     9    19   16   11 * *     5     0   47
South Dakota    24     9    10    7   11 *   11 *     0   44
Tennessee    29    13    21   13   12 *    7     6     0   72
Texas    66    24    37   25   27 *   50     7     0  137
Utah    16    11    14    4    8 *   10     6     0   44
Vermont    11     4    11 *    4 * * *     0   27
Virgin Islands * * *    0    0 *    0 *     0    5
Virginia    27    12    30   13   15 *   12     4 *   68
Washington    30    10    25   16   20 *   21     6 *   77
West Virginia    13     4    11    7 ****    0   32
Wisconsin    52    14    18   12   14 *   19     5 *   83
Wyoming    13     7     8 *    6 *    7     4     0   32
  Nationwide   863   238   259  296  308    4  505    24     6 1,395
Table 8
Providers of High-Speed Lines by Technology as of June 30, 2008
(Over 200 kbps in at least one direction)
ADSL SDSL Fiber SatelliteState
* Indicates one to three providers.
 
Traditional Cable Fixed Mobile Power Line
Wireline Modem Wireless Wireless and Other
Alabama 430,874 6,108 6,173 417,330 3,187 * 907 * 0 1,524,605
Alaska 72,032 * 493 * * * 10,638 * 0 182,545
American Samoa * * 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 *
Arizona 454,036 1,375 19,947 991,729 3,201 * 18,315 * 0 2,860,516
Arkansas 266,923 281 2,353 235,655 1,405 * * * 0 772,093
California 4,754,973 29,765 107,657 3,798,686 249,526 * 71,008 * 0 18,619,383
Colorado 574,903 2,298 20,163 626,069 3,191 * 30,345 * 0 2,344,512
Connecticut * 2,936 4,856 575,644 2,642 * 0 * 0 2,002,300
Delaware * 197 3,080 * * * 0 * 0 481,371
District of Columbia * 1,836 4,010 * 1,276 * * * 0 471,514
Florida 2,045,146 7,156 53,096 2,631,022 217,217 * 41,033 * * 8,157,096
Georgia 1,361,221 5,887 28,238 903,797 8,262 * 386 * 0 3,996,695
Guam * 0 * * 0 0 0 0 0 *
Hawaii * * 816 * 486 * * * 0 643,085
Idaho 153,697 294 1,962 126,634 1,133 * 50,692 * 0 690,599
Illinois 1,418,545 10,850 26,306 1,624,647 7,302 * 31,331 * * 5,537,923
Indiana 651,097 3,535 9,741 455,929 48,639 * 12,475 * * 2,479,608
Iowa 321,784 3,792 2,679 308,500 8,359 * 18,516 * 0 1,091,069
Kansas 240,921 4,982 5,906 380,063 5,065 * 16,856 * 0 1,063,920
Kentucky 384,920 4,974 4,873 481,916 3,421 * 3,371 * 0 1,298,038
Louisiana 353,678 1,240 4,760 480,720 19,227 * 2,601 * 0 1,552,888
Maine 120,357 4,038 4,334 196,848 3,368 * 0 * 0 428,904
Maryland 495,132 8,024 17,209 871,044 * * * * 0 2,738,746
Massachusetts * 5,445 16,700 1,158,976 * * 1,082 * 0 3,392,831
Michigan 748,563 3,907 15,118 1,306,725 3,130 * 9,470 * * 3,844,955
Minnesota 528,792 18,731 10,539 621,781 10,596 * 30,333 * 0 2,152,875
Mississippi 219,564 224 2,611 188,062 834 * 168 * 0 584,044
Missouri 712,189 3,978 11,638 517,207 4,154 * 8,835 * * 2,076,382
Montana 108,083 3,276 931 90,467 701 * 10,107 * 0 476,845
Nebraska 143,036 3,976 1,053 262,073 639 * 14,927 * 0 702,180
Nevada 224,688 3,825 7,730 * 1,314 * 17,944 * 0 1,268,860
New Hampshire 96,781 2,097 4,869 250,233 16,058 * * * 0 681,535
New Jersey 699,670 4,250 24,169 1,586,469 * * * * 0 5,338,219
New Mexico 217,072 278 2,402 137,463 1,104 * 3,360 * 0 719,761
New York 1,168,816 18,900 35,880 3,548,486 * * 7,603 * 0 8,910,527
North Carolina 870,296 2,814 21,060 1,266,151 5,432 * * * 0 3,832,927
North Dakota 60,038 2,145 372 82,853 9,297 * 5,166 * 0 321,663
Northern Mariana Isl. * 0 * * * 0 * 0 0 *
Ohio 1,034,335 4,302 17,632 1,626,534 8,951 * 24,317 * * 5,066,325
Oklahoma 334,105 886 3,748 381,910 3,235 * 5,080 * 0 1,077,215
Oregon 360,993 9,889 5,656 554,284 * * 28,160 * 0 1,716,959
Pennsylvania 1,208,597 15,479 23,147 1,491,572 * * 5,134 * 0 5,682,008
Puerto Rico * 0 4,421 * 313 * 4,860 * 0 582,155
Rhode Island * 942 1,667 * * * 0 * 0 527,728
South Carolina 386,274 392 8,990 517,385 12,993 * * * 0 1,779,117
South Dakota 53,343 3,993 261 115,048 7,332 * 6,199 * 0 362,263
Tennessee 534,652 710 12,046 714,610 24,565 * 7,888 * 0 2,767,503
Texas 2,475,277 12,482 48,548 2,214,161 230,859 * 98,670 * 0 9,110,055
Utah 284,487 7,261 6,345 212,474 2,770 * 27,850 * 0 1,108,549
Vermont 72,581 * 2,348 * 416 * * * 0 257,065
Virgin Islands * * * 0 0 * 0 * 0 19,441
Virginia 560,616 3,589 24,166 941,193 * * 15,539 * * 3,584,485
Washington 600,239 9,179 12,555 943,846 33,542 * 86,546 * * 3,312,811
West Virginia 146,964 * 3,347 167,237 * * * * 0 371,760
Wisconsin 556,171 15,062 6,093 711,209 4,193 * 12,285 * * 1,931,916
Wyoming 55,265 1,769 300 * 501 * 3,870 * 0 288,052
  Nationwide 29,963,968 274,582 665,110 38,190,355 2,346,328 869,450 808,375 59,690,619 5,197 132,813,984
SDSLADSL Fiber Satellite TotalState
* Data withheld to maintain firm confidentiality.
Table 9
High-Speed Lines by Technology as of June 30, 2008
(Over 200 kbps in at least one direction)
 
2008
Jun Jun Jun Dec Jun Dec Jun Dec Jun
Alabama 283,946 350,691 455,300 531,350 615,510 898,850 1,118,302 1,353,777 1,524,605
Alaska 61,121 88,076 95,761 109,484 125,005 145,008 156,187 171,257 182,545
American Samoa 0 * * * * * * * *
Arizona 441,227 618,677 809,819 1,039,445 1,392,711 1,832,564 2,192,644 2,579,687 2,860,516
Arkansas 128,100 188,185 258,270 299,850 361,150 428,899 526,973 658,867 772,093
California 3,378,373 4,608,822 5,954,876 7,197,952 9,257,609 11,755,654 14,374,803 17,159,597 18,619,383
Colorado 338,083 515,081 688,189 882,669 1,165,853 1,489,091 1,827,962 2,270,584 2,344,512
Connecticut 364,371 516,039 679,891 803,274 1,018,755 1,257,276 1,554,448 1,834,752 2,002,300
Delaware 54,272 74,732 108,554 132,399 157,648 273,734 353,763 438,951 481,371
District of Columbia 58,800 83,213 113,086 139,594 200,221 268,008 337,897 420,305 471,514
Florida 1,634,552 2,236,963 2,958,350 3,537,720 4,408,427 5,346,321 6,349,093 7,416,288 8,157,096
Georgia 748,016 1,039,440 1,328,956 1,610,750 2,054,171 2,547,165 3,087,975 3,737,830 3,996,695
Guam 0 * * * * * * * *
Hawaii * * * * 294,612 417,674 486,337 584,113 643,085
Idaho 64,353 99,845 149,023 167,926 202,521 381,283 483,049 613,317 690,599
Illinois 840,632 1,270,907 1,817,481 2,118,882 2,626,276 3,499,144 4,276,554 5,085,232 5,537,923
Indiana 233,679 515,812 742,667 913,528 1,182,578 1,408,019 1,823,221 2,267,190 2,479,608
Iowa 162,257 229,811 325,701 394,359 448,192 657,459 826,632 991,142 1,091,069
Kansas 248,405 322,742 419,384 468,032 596,776 726,742 876,744 989,832 1,063,920
Kentucky 121,594 300,704 408,184 508,198 629,538 774,736 959,771 1,161,750 1,298,038
Louisiana 315,682 420,917 536,934 508,009 730,203 892,835 1,088,803 1,286,504 1,552,888
Maine 85,212 123,739 176,396 214,599 248,440 306,006 359,113 396,271 428,904
Maryland 458,128 655,588 899,640 1,120,826 1,492,484 1,813,960 2,172,522 2,535,778 2,738,746
Massachusetts 802,423 1,004,229 1,213,640 1,431,925 1,811,845 2,243,742 2,660,501 3,140,550 3,392,831
Michigan 729,113 946,819 1,336,312 1,535,124 1,895,666 2,408,866 2,972,374 3,557,337 3,844,955
Minnesota 394,982 561,411 716,826 855,752 1,057,055 1,313,505 1,579,346 1,961,654 2,152,875
Mississippi 95,628 139,429 191,675 219,552 262,671 332,307 399,571 489,438 584,044
Missouri 362,040 537,343 704,273 805,525 1,010,910 1,269,326 1,561,172 1,866,033 2,076,382
Montana 28,023 57,650 90,583 112,662 139,946 264,121 346,230 432,877 476,845
Nebraska 141,172 199,282 253,968 305,120 355,013 470,118 537,693 633,722 702,180
Nevada 209,028 290,518 401,932 471,922 612,101 790,020 1,058,634 1,159,264 1,268,860
New Hampshire 118,304 168,000 236,817 268,128 302,957 443,207 539,686 637,977 681,535
New Jersey 924,835 1,194,557 1,605,301 1,989,803 2,654,674 3,392,607 4,153,343 4,923,622 5,338,219
New Mexico 71,355 115,147 174,534 204,054 252,361 422,964 544,706 662,246 719,761
New York 1,891,457 2,349,956 3,067,983 3,660,500 4,854,803 5,669,523 6,800,348 8,097,191 8,910,527
North Carolina 680,828 965,761 1,222,648 1,482,930 1,914,822 2,366,079 2,893,582 3,484,798 3,832,927
North Dakota 25,474 39,274 86,274 96,314 108,476 131,348 144,994 292,100 321,663
Northern Mariana Isl. 0 0 0 * * * * * *
Ohio 817,020 1,152,300 1,601,981 1,909,661 2,439,297 3,179,003 3,947,240 4,612,350 5,066,325
Oklahoma 231,106 331,605 444,777 498,640 565,528 654,283 777,999 971,167 1,077,215
Oregon 316,300 437,040 558,489 688,487 860,385 1,060,386 1,285,947 1,566,919 1,716,959
Pennsylvania 755,947 1,123,876 1,578,981 1,999,118 2,646,898 3,374,313 4,121,608 5,148,887 5,682,008
Puerto Rico 32,063 43,091 66,484 118,268 169,917 251,163 332,671 471,560 582,155
Rhode Island 104,444 141,981 185,415 221,901 276,141 349,994 416,053 490,649 527,728
South Carolina 262,868 354,877 464,315 549,019 646,344 1,041,762 1,308,281 1,586,082 1,779,117
South Dakota 22,016 34,026 112,506 124,243 138,621 154,738 164,627 185,058 362,263
Tennessee 413,476 534,597 682,369 847,025 1,153,432 1,573,978 2,036,625 2,519,234 2,767,503
Texas 1,571,250 2,203,490 2,943,487 3,451,702 4,343,050 5,540,763 6,964,956 8,337,020 9,110,055
Utah 133,467 196,590 259,150 313,854 471,137 638,618 818,665 998,847 1,108,549
Vermont 39,773 56,033 82,279 95,901 108,622 170,245 193,151 240,257 257,065
Virgin Islands * * 2,183 2,967 7,226 11,139 16,014 18,996 19,441
Virginia 553,635 817,881 1,117,591 1,367,465 1,792,817 2,197,693 2,689,907 3,279,808 3,584,485
Washington 577,378 775,027 1,000,412 1,219,631 1,575,375 2,015,564 2,481,537 3,115,075 3,312,811
West Virginia 90,173 127,283 178,323 205,984 245,669 268,746 306,449 336,321 371,760
Wisconsin 401,565 564,670 731,934 844,961 1,018,482 1,235,500 1,485,891 1,766,448 1,931,916
Wyoming 17,507 35,464 55,905 70,574 83,086 156,940 205,711 260,310 288,052
  Nationwide 22,995,444 31,950,574 42,517,810 50,930,245 64,991,653 82,525,450 100,986,136 121,222,347 132,813,984
Some historical data have been revised back through December 2005.  
2006 2007
Table 10
High-Speed Lines by State
(Over 200 kbps in at least one direction)
* Data withheld to maintain firm confidentiality. 
2003 2004
State
2005
 
2008
Jun Jun Jun Dec Jun Dec Jun Dec Jun
Alabama 70,639  112,059  177,196 220,657 268,970 314,640 356,830 402,603 430,874
Alaska 14,013  20,686  38,530 43,249 53,687 60,055 63,708 67,938 72,032
American Samoa 0  0  *******
Arizona 77,368  108,735  152,937 207,727 276,261 365,228 405,724 436,857 454,036
Arkansas 44,801  80,981  127,445 149,878 180,883 200,129 226,842 248,908 266,923
California 1,715,998  2,342,186  3,078,824 3,592,220 4,001,529 4,342,556 4,626,442 4,780,051 4,754,973
Colorado 126,189  201,523  268,114 333,313 404,989 473,148 529,504 573,387 574,903
Connecticut 124,742  204,034  * * *****
Delaware *  10,572  * *
District of Columbia 39,471  44,231  * * *****
Florida 644,621  928,402  1,284,507 1,509,104 1,722,888 1,873,271 1,960,025 2,046,084 2,045,146
Georgia 368,372  535,088  757,720 890,128 1,008,705 1,126,082 1,218,885 1,307,237 1,361,221
Guam 0   *  *******
Hawaii *   *  * *
Idaho 19,382  35,166  62,691 81,520 97,662 113,001 129,188 142,440 153,697
Illinois 363,733  588,906  847,522 979,709 1,094,088 1,211,763 1,300,003 1,382,195 1,418,545
Indiana 85,968  179,942  304,800 379,465 443,473 515,054 583,797 635,507 651,097
Iowa 39,386  65,580  118,777 150,890 189,178 233,396 270,637 298,322 321,784
Kansas 50,839  88,246  136,402 159,996 179,430 202,751 224,843 235,919 240,921
Kentucky 75,316  119,709  180,324 213,131 250,715 303,296 340,350 367,452 384,920
Louisiana 100,919  136,406  190,603 207,488 235,750 270,811 306,283 333,076 353,678
Maine 11,052  31,577  52,032 72,709 89,964 104,780 115,261 117,570 120,357
Maryland 126,873  192,139  305,677 379,316 450,019 489,553 512,156 513,529 495,132
Massachusetts 207,344  253,576  * * *****
Michigan 135,360  236,310  374,861 463,373 533,835 606,616 689,536 732,950 748,563
Minnesota 115,244  159,137  227,988 276,439 330,736 394,686 449,452 496,317 528,792
Mississippi 33,650  52,892  88,252 105,874 128,585 154,179 180,281 202,262 219,564
Missouri 138,046  233,916  341,618 398,671 468,334 545,679 618,302 682,572 712,189
Montana 13,119  28,238  46,786 57,300 70,471 82,876 95,790 102,231 108,083
Nebraska 18,285  35,180  66,268 81,188 95,404 112,032 124,126 135,305 143,036
Nevada 47,934  74,879  116,395 139,938 168,086 190,202 207,051 220,409 224,688
New Hampshire 17,823  31,843  54,233 71,689 85,247 93,589 98,283 99,602 96,781
New Jersey 211,540  301,789  443,808 540,382 638,293 703,950 734,700 734,903 699,670
New Mexico 26,948  51,375  82,062 105,210 130,998 156,620 179,856 200,497 217,072
New York 438,241  536,980  736,769 861,452 1,002,972 1,103,960 1,181,851 1,184,011 1,168,816
North Carolina 161,642  264,248  412,991 488,533 561,102 648,001 724,936 820,334 870,296
North Dakota 11,593  19,412  26,841 32,000 38,729 46,346 51,096 55,635 60,038
Northern Mariana Isl. 0  0  0  ******
Ohio 243,689  369,386  555,749 663,011 752,633 858,846 950,969 1,024,412 1,034,335
Oklahoma 78,248  129,996  189,496 222,048 246,899 277,282 301,523 323,685 334,105
Oregon 95,654  142,483  197,927 244,694 280,286 311,604 338,765 355,563 360,993
Pennsylvania 230,322  346,720  541,274 692,079 871,164 1,012,845 1,125,794 1,191,348 1,208,597
Puerto Rico *   *  *******
Rhode Island    *  
South Carolina 52,667  98,583  154,666 205,529 242,548 284,892 322,858 359,439 386,274
South Dakota 8,637  15,230  20,632 26,168 32,763 39,684 45,772 48,386 53,343
Tennessee 92,777  147,922  237,180 293,915 348,344 396,928 446,551 499,164 534,652
Texas 597,447  930,997  1,300,681 1,513,639 1,732,716 1,996,752 2,293,905 2,463,911 2,475,277
Utah 65,648  95,656  129,607 160,313 189,240 222,307 249,683 269,785 284,487
Vermont 15,072  22,519  35,281 43,934 51,382 61,441 68,041 72,006 72,581
Virgin Islands *   *  *******
Virginia 114,797  196,568  308,947 384,243 446,448 505,285 547,941 568,284 560,616
Washington 225,377  300,804  363,796 427,451 491,409 533,668 569,397 592,133 600,239
West Virginia *   *  53,292 69,390 86,507 104,637 123,645 137,948 146,964
Wisconsin 84,100  159,167  243,370 298,111 359,530 417,510 483,750 528,196 556,171
Wyoming 5,503  13,510  23,769 33,030 38,541 44,347 49,933 52,602 55,265
  Nationwide 7,675,114  11,398,199  16,316,309 19,515,483 22,583,548 25,412,509 27,792,800 29,449,166 29,963,968
Some historical data have been revised back through June 2006. 
2006 2007
Table 11
ADSL High-Speed Lines by State
(Over 200 kbps in at least one direction)
* Data withheld to maintain firm confidentiality.
2003 2004
State
2005
 
2008
Jun Jun Jun Dec Jun Dec Jun Dec Jun
Alabama 181,338  206,208  257,225 285,177 310,548 342,340 374,029 398,840  417,330
Alaska *  *  * * * * * * *
American Samoa 0  0  0 0 0 0 0 0  0
Arizona 319,272  457,869  583,897 679,284 761,419 838,455 850,307 896,746  991,729
Arkansas *  95,528  117,953 137,105 148,940 183,503 205,349 214,028  235,655
California 1,395,435  1,929,080  2,467,232 2,734,659 2,956,932 3,155,718 3,410,983 3,603,105  3,798,686
Colorado 181,766  280,909  383,154 433,184 476,463 523,159 560,557 604,247  626,069
Connecticut 227,658  299,176  372,346 403,723 441,092 454,348 513,211 550,019  575,644
Delaware *  *  * * * * * * *
District of Columbia *  *  * * * * * * *
Florida 867,513  1,171,641  1,559,592 1,757,875 1,939,409 2,178,484 2,344,445 2,543,384  2,631,022
Georgia 289,922  407,038  522,800 583,884 649,583 742,552 802,047 862,212  903,797
Guam 0  0  0000 0 * *
Hawaii *  *  **** *
Idaho *  *  78,185 73,528 75,185 108,595 116,273 123,067  126,634
Illinois 383,069  589,025  841,737 955,518 1,042,272 1,332,023 1,465,869 1,570,281  1,624,647
Indiana 122,338  304,866  397,481 445,420 490,020 370,200 410,438 439,417  455,929
Iowa 111,748  151,299  186,821 219,803 225,190 234,266 267,712 287,011  308,500
Kansas 181,437  209,233  258,856 272,660 316,866 320,638 351,371 368,988  380,063
Kentucky 23,672  154,567  217,302 269,274 306,487 333,339 383,593 434,900  481,916
Louisiana 189,920  257,405  328,675 254,819 378,613 419,735 446,485 485,349  480,720
Maine *  *  116,203 132,075 145,831 152,291 169,458 179,398  196,848
Maryland 306,442  433,754  546,576 592,283 637,405 781,120 829,473 864,763  871,044
Massachusetts 564,961  704,956  826,351 885,578 954,812 1,044,333 1,088,170 1,135,807  1,158,976
Michigan 543,336  656,263  891,842 953,786 1,019,338 1,103,040 1,197,105 1,265,384  1,306,725
Minnesota 255,988  358,477  440,726 493,783 517,018 541,116 570,874 607,772  621,781
Mississippi 50,234  72,271  95,805 104,363 114,140 135,965 151,539 166,092  188,062
Missouri 191,658  266,493  323,270 353,331 400,808 444,118 473,449 497,878  517,207
Montana *  22,856  35,625 45,442 54,056 65,238 74,246 83,006  90,467
Nebraska 111,903  142,555  177,074 200,600 218,335 239,465 238,019 251,699  262,073
Nevada *  *  * * * * * * *
New Hampshire 95,612  129,024  176,033 188,212 201,873 209,781 229,855 239,605  250,233
New Jersey 690,620  862,834  1,107,751 1,205,182 1,312,433 1,385,953 1,473,709 1,538,490  1,586,469
New Mexico 38,004  56,369  78,035 89,003 100,157 108,906 117,336 126,692  137,463
New York 1,401,322  1,752,189  2,216,153 2,444,565 2,765,476 2,967,028 3,164,178 3,341,913  3,548,486
North Carolina 454,272  623,414  762,203 861,990 963,651 1,040,513 1,134,075 1,195,757  1,266,151
North Dakota 10,066  14,428  50,781 54,772 57,722 70,878 76,353 79,755  82,853
Northern Mariana Isl. 0  0  0000 0 * *
Ohio 508,458  709,145  961,119 1,064,948 1,184,924 1,303,470 1,405,899 1,498,317  1,626,534
Oklahoma *  *  233,993 261,585 284,184 312,500 347,813 372,867  381,910
Oregon 197,794  262,513  335,847 375,351 407,195 452,517 489,902 531,258  554,284
Pennsylvania 482,471  724,101  962,149 1,074,912 1,164,080 1,255,720 1,271,157 1,398,950  1,491,572
Puerto Rico *  *  **** * * *
Rhode Island *  *  * * * * * * *
South Carolina 185,083  228,648  290,233 326,370 368,338 417,584 459,110 496,188  517,385
South Dakota 9,156  12,114  83,667 88,812 92,860 100,155 100,903 111,009  115,048
Tennessee 277,579  340,883  422,063 460,235 506,143 601,889 662,520 702,891  714,610
Texas 888,595  1,162,797  1,467,804 1,617,513 1,692,433 1,944,069 2,081,963 2,183,062  2,214,161
Utah *  *  * * * * * * 212,474 
Vermont *  *  * * * * * * *
Virgin Islands 0  0  0 0 0 0 0 0  0
Virginia 404,616  579,580  748,694 817,100 892,955 877,235 906,252 921,438  941,193
Washington 313,915  426,487  585,125 660,159 725,832 806,126 862,049 909,108  943,846
West Virginia 73,263  97,463  117,538 128,133 145,450 144,569 155,867 158,921  167,237
Wisconsin 287,519  371,106  446,840 497,262 542,881 591,981 636,675 675,737  711,209
Wyoming *  *  * * * * * * *
  Nationwide 13,684,225  18,592,636 24,017,442 26,558,206 29,173,449 31,981,705 34,404,368 36,506,972  38,190,355
Some historical data have been revised. 
* Data withheld to maintain firm confidentiality. 
2006
State
2003 20052004
Table 12
Coaxial Cable High-Speed Lines by State
(Over 200 kbps in at least one direction)
2007
 
State     Residential Business Total
Alabama 909,945 614,660 1,524,605
Alaska 156,793 25,752 182,545
American Samoa ***
Arizona 1,575,252 1,285,264 2,860,516
Arkansas 612,182 159,911 772,093
California 10,406,479 8,212,904 18,619,383
Colorado 1,315,361 1,029,151 2,344,512
Connecticut 1,135,798 866,502 2,002,300
Delaware 240,153 241,218 481,371
District of Columbia 191,505 280,009 471,514
Florida 5,425,497 2,731,599 8,157,096
Georgia 2,402,283 1,594,412 3,996,695
Guam ***
Hawaii 378,477 264,608 643,085
Idaho 343,184 347,415 690,599
Illinois 3,471,815 2,066,108 5,537,923
Indiana 1,274,862 1,204,746 2,479,608
Iowa 632,294 458,775 1,091,069
Kansas 721,808 342,112 1,063,920
Kentucky 932,158 365,880 1,298,038
Louisiana 1,111,304 441,584 1,552,888
Maine 309,458 119,446 428,904
Maryland 1,767,213 971,533 2,738,746
Massachusetts 1,946,046 1,446,785 3,392,831
Michigan 2,262,822 1,582,133 3,844,955
Minnesota 1,288,882 863,993 2,152,875
Mississippi 435,193 148,851 584,044
Missouri 1,496,075 580,307 2,076,382
Montana 198,534 278,311 476,845
Nebraska 431,124 271,056 702,180
Nevada 780,141 488,719 1,268,860
New Hampshire 363,328 318,207 681,535
New Jersey 2,716,982 2,621,237 5,338,219
New Mexico 374,043 345,718 719,761
New York 5,470,914 3,439,613 8,910,527
North Carolina 2,280,220 1,552,707 3,832,927
North Dakota 145,593 176,070 321,663
Northern Mariana Islands ***
Ohio 2,838,688 2,227,637 5,066,325
Oklahoma 880,666 196,549 1,077,215
Oregon 1,081,837 635,122 1,716,959
Pennsylvania 3,097,119 2,584,889 5,682,008
Puerto Rico 501,072 81,083 582,155
Rhode Island 297,643 230,085 527,728
South Carolina 942,688 836,429 1,779,117
South Dakota 170,380 191,883 362,263
Tennessee 1,346,820 1,420,683 2,767,503
Texas 6,198,779 2,911,276 9,110,055
Utah 552,567 555,982 1,108,549
Vermont 136,780 120,285 257,065
Virgin Islands 17,576 1,865 19,441
Virginia 1,900,624 1,683,861 3,584,485
Washington 1,783,539 1,529,272 3,312,811
West Virginia 314,072 57,688 371,760
Wisconsin 1,384,836 547,080 1,931,916
Wyoming 116,661 171,391 288,052
  Nationwide 79,089,575 53,724,409 132,813,984
* Data withheld to maintain firm confidentiality.
Table 13
High-Speed Lines by Type of End User as of June 30, 2008
(Over 200 kbps in at least one direction)
 
xDSL Availability Where Cable Modem Availability Where
State ILECs Offer Local Telephone Service Cable Systems Offer Cable TV Service
Alabama 77% 93%
Alaska 75% *
American Samoa *0%
Arizona 84% 99%
Arkansas 77% 74%
California 89% 99%
Colorado 89% 96%
Connecticut * 100%
Delaware * *
District of Columbia **
Florida 89% 98%
Georgia 93% 90%
Guam
Hawaii * *
Idaho 80% 99%
Illinois 85% 97%
Indiana 81% 91%
Iowa 86% 90%
Kansas 83% 91%
Kentucky 88% 89%
Louisiana 83% 97%
Maine 71% 93%
Maryland 75% 98%
Massachusetts * 100%
Michigan 73% 99%
Minnesota 86% 96%
Mississippi 76% 92%
Missouri 80% 97%
Montana 78% 88%
Nebraska 86% 93%
Nevada 87% *
New Hampshire 62% 99%
New Jersey 86% 100%
New Mexico 85% 79%
New York 79% 99%
North Carolina 85% 95%
North Dakota 89% 82%
Northern Mariana Isl. * *
Ohio 85% 98%
Oklahoma 80% 92%
Oregon 83% 95%
Pennsylvania 84% 94%
Puerto Rico **
Rhode Island
South Carolina 84% 93%
South Dakota 80% 81%
Tennessee 83% 96%
Texas 80% 96%
Utah 89% 88%
Vermont 71% *
Virgin Islands * 0%
Virginia 65% 97%
Washington 83% 98%
West Virginia 69% 85%
Wisconsin 82% 96%
Wyoming 81% *
  Nationwide 83% 96%
* Data withheld to maintain firm confidentiality.
xDSL includes both asymmetric and symmetric DSL.  Each state-specific estimate is a weighted average of the availability percentages that ILECs or 
cable system operators report for the areas they serve.  Reported xDSL availability is weighted by ILEC end-user switched access lines.  Reported cable 
modem availability is weighted by cable TV subscribers.  The weighted averages include ILECs or cable system operators that report no availability.
Table 14
Percentage of Residential End-User Premises with Access to High-Speed Services as of June 30, 2008
 
Number of
Providers
Zero 22.2 % 20.6 % 16.1 % 12.0 % 9.0 % 6.8 % 5.7 % 4.6 % 2.0 % 1.0 % 0.7 % 0.4 % 0.1 % 0.2 % 0.0 %
One 20.3 19.3 18.4 17.3 16.4 14.9 13.8 12.5 9.3 5.6 3.7 2.4 0.9 1.3 0.3
Two 16.7 15.7 16.2 16.8 16.9 17.1 16.8 16.3 14.1 11.9 8.2 5.7 3.6 3.8 1.5
Three 13.2 13.1 13.3 14.4 14.0 14.9 14.9 15.1 15.0 14.8 11.3 8.9 7.0 6.7 3.7
Four 8.2 9.1 9.6 10.3 10.6 11.2 11.6 12.2 12.6 13.5 12.9 11.4 11.1 10.3 7.2
Five 4.9 6.1 6.9 7.3 7.7 7.8 8.4 8.9 9.7 10.3 12.2 12.5 13.6 12.8 10.8
Six 3.6 4.2 4.6 5.0 5.3 5.8 6.1 6.3 6.8 7.8 10.4 11.7 13.0 13.4 13.4
Seven 2.8 3.2 3.2 3.9 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 5.3 5.7 8.7 10.0 11.6 11.2 12.7
Eight 2.2 2.5 2.8 2.7 3.1 3.3 3.6 3.6 4.0 4.6 7.1 8.3 9.1 9.0 9.9
Nine 1.9 2.0 2.4 2.2 2.5 2.6 2.8 3.1 3.8 4.0 5.8 6.7 7.4 7.4 7.4
Ten or More 3.9 4.0 6.4 8.0 10.5 11.4 11.8 12.8 17.5 20.7 19.1 22.0 22.7 23.8 33.2
For data through December 2004, only those providers with at least 250 lines per state were required to file.  Figures may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
          
1
Chart 12
Percent of Zip Codes with High-Speed Providers
2008
JunJun Jun DecDec
Table 15
Percentage of Zip Codes with High-Speed Lines in Service
20052003
Jun DecJun
2004
Jun Dec
2001 2002
Dec
2007
Dec JunDec
2006
Jun
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
J
un 
2
000
J
un 
2
001
J
un 
2
002
J
un 
2
003
J
un 
2
004
J
un 
2
005
J
un 
2
006
J
un 
2
007
J
un 
2
008
One or More Providers Four or More Providers
 
  
 
Technology
Zero One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine
Ten or 
More
 ADSL 12.8  38.0  20.8  10.9  6.8  5.0  2.7  1.7  0.8  0.3  0.2  
 SDSL 61.3  20.0  7.3  5.1  3.5  1.7  0.7  0.2  0.1  0.0  0.0  
Cable Modem 32.8  57.1  9.1  0.9  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  
 Fiber 62.3  19.5  10.3  5.1  1.9  0.6  0.2  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  
 Satellite 6.5  20.8  53.6  19.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  
 Fixed Wireless 71.8  21.1  5.6  1.2  0.3  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  
 Mobile Wireless 0.6  6.0  34.1  47.3  11.4  0.5  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  
 Power Line and/or Other 
1
43.2  17.6  9.4  6.3  5.0  4.3  3.7  2.9  2.7  1.8  3.2  
ADSL and/or Cable Modem 8.6  23.3  22.3  16.2  10.4  7.2  5.2  3.4  1.9  1.0  0.7  
 
All Technologies 0.0  0.3  1.5  3.7  7.2  10.8  13.4  12.7  9.9  7.4  33.2  
Figures may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
1 
Other includes high-speed lines provided over traditional wireline facilities such as T-carrier and also lines provided over any technology that is not 
specified in the table.
Table 16
Percentage of Zip Codes with High-Speed Lines in Service by Technology as of June 30, 2008
Number of Providers

 
 
Alabama 0 % 0 % 1 % 2 % 3 % 8 % 17 % 16 % 15 % 8 % 30 %
Alaska 0 12 37 21 17430310
Arizona 0001268108757
Arkansas 0027115276859
California 0002481096654
Colorado 001255312868
Connecticut 000071015412130
Delaware 00052565035
District of Columbia 00044004008
Florida 000012487870
Georgia 00023814131 841
Hawaii 0003614868142
Idaho 0039721417125
Illinois 0023813619632
Indiana 00148214131387
Iowa 0025101 642 2
Kansas 312121096
Kentucky 0 2 8 11 12 14 13 11 8 6 14
Louisiana 000237162112931
Maine 01481158633
Maryland 00137212126642
Massachusetts 000129339103
Michigan 00013711514 9
Minnesota 00251214330626
Mississippi 00021016171483
Missouri 00251013 59524
Montana 00079251710641
Nebraska 0004101 61585
Nevada 0011771119746
New Hampshire 000035 8211230
New Jersey 00001436687
New Mexico 0022916191710421
New York 0013534 836
North Carolina 0001241016171 8
North Dakota 0 0 2 17 28 25 155313
Ohio 00001401615142
Oklahoma 00231019181763
Oregon 0025 449871
Pennsylvania 01361131312653
Puerto Rico 00001268291727
Rhode Island 0013591215754
South Carolina 00013535995
South Dakota 0 0 3 16 23 20 149736
Tennessee 001251 6149735
Texas 0012481 101042
Utah 000468810 638
Vermont 00016121321132
Virginia 00128 615079
Washington 00045121 0964
West Virginia 0 1 6 12 22 22 168337
Wisconsin 00114102191292
Wyoming 0017148194771
  Nationwide 0 % 0 % 2 % 4 % 7 % 11 % 13 % 13 % 10 % 7 % 33 %
Zero One Two Three
Ten or
Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine
More
Table 17
Percentage of Zip Codes with High-Speed Lines in Service as of June 30, 2008
(Over 200 kbps in at least one direction)
Number of Providers
 
Jun 2006 Jun 2006
More than 3,190 99.3 % 99.5 % 99.7 % 99.9 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 %
975 - 3,190 99.8 99.7 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
278 - 975 99.4 99.7 99.7 99.9 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
118 - 278 99.5 99.7 99.6 99.8 100.0 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
66 - 118 99.4 99.7 99.7 99.7 100.0 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
41 - 66 99.1 99.3 99.6 99.5 99.9 99.9 100.0 99.9 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
25 - 41 97.7 98.8 99.3 99.4 99.8 99.6 100.0 99.6 99.8 99.9 99.9 100.0 99.9 100.0
15 - 25 97.5 98.1 98.7 99.4 99.9 99.7 100.0 99.4 99.5 99.7 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0
6 - 15 95.8 97.9 98.6 99.2 99.9 99.5 100.0 98.9 99.6 99.7 99.8 100.0 99.9 100.0
Fewer than 6 92.2 96.9 98.2 99.0 99.8 99.6 100.0 98.2 99.3 99.7 99.9 100.0 99.9 100.0
Jun 2006 Jun 2006
More than $61,200 99.6 % 99.8 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 %
$50,331 - $61,200 99.7 99.6 99.9 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
$44,439 - $50,331 99.3 99.4 99.7 99.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
$40,334 - $44,439 98.8 99.2 99.6 99.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
$37,281 - $40,334 98.2 99.1 99.3 99.6 100.0 99.8 100.0 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
$34,633 - $37,281 98.4 99.2 99.5 99.7 99.9 99.9 100.0 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
$32,125 - $34,633 97.4 98.9 99.3 99.6 99.9 99.9 100.0 99.9 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
$29,616 - $32,125 97.1 98.6 98.9 99.2 99.9 99.7 100.0 99.7 99.8 99.8 99.8 100.0 99.9 100.0
$26,113 - $29,616 96.4 98.2 98.8 99.5 99.9 99.7 100.0 99.8 99.9 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Less than $26,113 94.9 97.1 98.1 98.6 99.7 99.1 100.0 99.7 99.9 99.9 99.9 100.0 99.9 100.0
 
Dec 2006
Jun 2008
Dec 2005 Jun 2008
Dec 2006
Persons per Square 
Mile 
1
Dec 2005
Percentage of Population that Resides in Zip Codes with High-Speed Service
Jun 2005Dec 2007Jun 2007Jun 2005 Jun 2008
Jun 2008
Jun 2007Dec 2006
Dec 2006 Jun 2007
1
 Persons per square mile and median household income are presented in decile groups where each group contains 10% of the geographic Zip Codes.  Because Zip Codes are being updated constantly, the decile break points vary 
slightly over time.  The break points shown are typical.  These data are created by geographically merging contemporaneous Tele Atlas  ® Dynamap ® ZIP Code Boundary & Inventory Files with census block-level population 
and census block group-level income data from the 2000 Census of Population and Housing.
Table 18
High-Speed Subscribership
Ranked by Population Density
Percentage of Population that Resides in Zip Codes with High-Speed Service
Table 19
High-Speed Subscribership
Ranked by Household Income
Percentage of Zip Codes with at Least One High-Speed Subscriber
Median Household 
Income 
1
Historical data have been revised back through June 2005.  
Dec 2005 Dec 2007
Dec 2007 Dec 2007Dec 2005Jun 2005 Jun 2005
Percentage of Zip Codes with at Least One High-Speed Subscriber
Jun 2007
  
Customer Response 
 
Publication:  High-Speed Services for Internet Access:  Status as of June 30, 2008 
 
You can help us provide the best possible information to the public by completing this form and returning it 
to the Industry Analysis and Technology Division of the FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau. 
 
1. Please check the category that best describes you: 
 ____ press 
 ____ current telecommunications carrier 
 ____ potential telecommunications carrier 
 ____ business customer evaluating vendors/service options 
 ____ consultant, law firm, lobbyist 
 ____ other business customer 
 ____ academic/student 
 ____ residential customer 
 ____ FCC employee 
 ____ other federal government employee 
 ____ state or local government employee 
 ____ Other (please specify)                                      
 
2. Please rate the report:      Excellent        Good       Satisfactory        Poor        No opinion 
 Data accuracy        (_)   (_)        (_)        (_)            (_) 
 Data presentation       (_)   (_)        (_)       (_)            (_) 
 Timeliness of data       (_)   (_)        (_)       (_)            (_) 
 Completeness of data       (_)   (_)        (_)       (_)            (_) 
 Text clarity        (_)   (_)        (_)       (_)            (_) 
 Completeness of text       (_)   (_)        (_)       (_)            (_) 
 
3. Overall, how do you         Excellent        Good        Satisfactory        Poor        No opinion  
 rate this report?             (_)   (_)        (_)           (_)            (_) 
 
4. How can this report be improved? 
                                                                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                 
 
5. May we contact you to discuss possible improvements? 
 Name:  
 Telephone #: 
 
To discuss the information in this report, contact:  202-418-0940 
or for users of TTY equipment, call 202-418-0484 
Fax this response to or Mail this response to 
202-418-0520  FCC/WCB/IATD   
Mail Stop 1600 F 
Washington, DC 20554 
 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-65 
 
 
 
STATEMENT OF  
CHAIRMAN JULIUS GENACHOWSKI 
 
Re:  Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans 
in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to 
Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement 
Act, GN Docket No. 09-137; A National Broadband Plan for Our Future, GN Docket No. 09-51.  
 
Ensuring that universal broadband improves the lives of all Americans is an urgent task.  Today’s 
item opening a Section 706 inquiry into broadband deployment is another step in the ongoing, agency-
wide drive toward developing a National Broadband Plan by February 2010.  The Commission is hard at 
work ensuring that the agency possesses the data needed to make wise policy decisions.   
 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-65 
 
 
 
STATEMENT OF  
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS 
 
Re:  Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans 
in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to 
Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement 
Act, GN Docket No. 09-137; A National Broadband Plan for Our Future, GN Docket No. 09-51.  
 
I am thrilled to see a Notice of Inquiry for the 706 Report that has real meaning—that is 
thoughtful, forward-looking, and a complement to the process this Commission has underway to develop 
a national broadband plan.  During every 706 Report process since I have been at the Commission, I have 
stressed that we needed to recognize this problem, diagnose it, and then come up with a solution to 
reverse our nation’s slide into technological and communications mediocrity.  On many occasions, I 
talked about how the country lacked a national strategy; how we lacked even the essential data on which 
to build a viable strategy; and how we were paying a terrible price because of a cavalier approach to an 
urgent national problem.  Happily, times have changed and we now have the commitment and the 
leadership to tackle these issues.  The Commission kicked off its massive broadband effort with the 
National Broadband Plan Notice of Inquiry, and with this Section 706 Notice we will start a new annual 
tradition—a true review of the state of broadband deployment in America.  
 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-65 
 
 
 
STATEMENT OF 
COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. McDOWELL 
 
Re:  Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans 
in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to 
Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement 
Act, GN Docket No. 09-137; A National Broadband Plan for Our Future, GN Docket No. 09-51.  
 
This nation has made great strides in developing and deploying broadband infrastructure and 
services since the Commission issued the first Section 706 Report in 1999.  Today, a wide variety of 
innovative services are provided to consumers over copper, cable, fiber, wireless and satellite 
infrastructure that simply did not exist a decade ago.  While we should always strive to do better, we 
should also learn from what America has achieved in the broadband market thus far. 
 
We must take great care to seek accurate and complete information that is useful to assess the 
state of broadband deployment.  This item, which I support, reflects the benefits of the additional 
guidance Congress has given the Commission.  Our resulting assessment should be improved by that 
guidance, our concurrent efforts in the National Broadband Plan proceeding, and the availability of more 
granular and expansive Form 477 data.